2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

Cheongwon of the Gu

1. Occurrence of national taxes in arrears, and status between us;

As of the filing date of the lawsuit against the OOO (hereinafter referred to as the "OOO") that is non-party in arrears, the plaintiff has a tax claim of 14,000 won, such as value-added tax, as shown in Table 1 below, and the delinquent corporation has not voluntarily paid it. The delinquent corporation entered into a sales contract with the defendant on September 18, 200 of "Seoul City 000 (hereinafter referred to as "the real estate in this case") to acquire "I" for a gold of 000 won (one to two to one to two of the categories in subparagraph (A) and one to two of subparagraph (3).

(B) Table 1: The details of national taxes in arrears by the State(OOOO) corporation in arrears on December 03, 2012>

2. Existence of any balance claims against the defendant of the delinquent corporation, and seizure and collection of claims;

On March 25, 2008, the Defendant sold the instant real estate to the delinquent taxpayer, agreed to deduct the amount equivalent to the acquisition amount from the purchase price under the condition that the delinquent corporation takes over the mortgaged debt, and, if the delinquent corporation fails to take over it, entered into a promise with the content that the Defendant re-sales the instant real estate to the delinquent corporation on March 31, 2008. The Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer due to the sale of the instant real estate to the delinquent corporation on March 31, 2008, and the delinquent corporation also completed the registration of ownership transfer claim based on the resale, but the delinquent corporation did not take over the Defendant’s mortgaged debt, and on September 18, 2009, concluded a contract with the delinquent corporation on September 18, 200 exercising the right to conclude the re-sale promise, and requested the delinquent corporation to pay the remainder of KRW 400,000,000,000, and the Defendant paid the remainder to the delinquent corporation on September 18, 2001.

3. The defendant's remainder payment and illegality of the non-party OO

On September 18, 2009, the non-partyO asserted that the non-partyO was transferred the remainder of the real estate in arrears with other executives and employees on September 18, 2009 as the title of payment of wage claims in arrears. To secure this, the non-partyO was paid KRW 000 on November 13, 2009 after completing the registration of creation of the right to collateral security on the real estate in this case and completing the payment of the remainder of claims to the defendant on September 21, 2009. However, the non-partyO demanded the defendant to establish the right to collateral security on the real estate in this case under the name of non-partyO, not in the name of the non-partyO, with the intent to avoid the purpose of supplementing the remainder payment and disposition on default of the plaintiff. Although the non-partyO was well aware of the fact that the non-partyO was a borrowed person without any authority to receive the remainder of claims, the payment of the remainder to the non-partyO cannot be asserted against the plaintiff's legitimate seizure and collection request (No.

4. Lawsuit seeking revocation of the disposition of rejecting the cancellation of the attachment by Nonparty O;

On September 18, 2009, NonpartyO filed a petition for a trial and administrative litigation against the Plaintiff on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s transfer date of the claim was earlier than the seizure and attachment of the claim on September 29, 2009. However, it is difficult to recognize that NonpartyO obtained consent from the Defendant with a certificate with a fixed date, and there is no evidence, and even, NonpartyOO was dismissed to the effect that it appears to be the most transferee of the claim in this case, and it became final and conclusive on August 30, 2012 that NonpartyO lost the Plaintiff due to the Supreme Court’s ruling of rejection without delay of the trial on August 30, 2012 (No. 7). The person who has a legitimate title to the remainder of the claim in this case is only the Plaintiff (No. 1 to 2).

5. Conclusion

As above, although the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining claim of KRW 000 to the plaintiff of the real estate of this case, the defendant's failure to comply with the plaintiff's request for collection has inevitably caused the plaintiff to file a claim for collection