A. On December 23, 2004, the Intervenor’s Intervenor (hereinafter “ Intervenor”) issued and delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note with face value of 200 million won, and on December 23, 2004, a notary public drafted a notarial deed to the effect that the said promissory note does not object to compulsory execution immediately under No. 868 of the Cjoint Law Office’s draft document (hereinafter “instant notarial deed”).

B. On the basis of the original copy of the instant notarial deed, the Plaintiff’s payment claim against the Intervenor against the Intervenor, up to the above amount of 1/2 of the balance obtained by deducting taxes and public charges from the Intervenor’s monthly wage paid by the Defendant, and the above amount of the claim from the amount accumulated: Provided, That in cases falling under the amount prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act in consideration of the minimum cost of living under the National Basic Living Security Act, in consideration of the minimum cost of living for the standard household’s living expenses, if the amount falls under the amount prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act, the remainder excluding such amount and the above claim amount are excluded from the retirement allowance to be received by the obligor, the interim retirement allowance to be received by the obligor, and the honorary retirement allowance to be paid by the obligor as the retirement allowance to be received by the obligor, and the amount equivalent to 1/2 of the remaining amount of the retirement allowance to be paid by the obligor as the retirement allowance to be collected by the Seoul Central District Court on October 11, 2007.

C. Meanwhile, the seizure of the Intervenor’s benefit, including the Plaintiff, conflicts with other creditors, and the Defendant is the amount of seized claims out of the Intervenor’s benefit and the amount of seized claims.