A. From August 1, 2018 to August 14, 2018, for KRW 116,010,958 and KRW 40 million among them.

A. On January 31, 2008, the Seoul Central District Court 2007Gahap34994, which was brought by D to seek the payment of loans against the Defendant, was established as follows (hereinafter “instant conciliation”).

1. The defendant shall pay to D KRW 80 million, whichever is earlier, the amount of KRW 20 million shall be paid to D until July 31, 2008, and KRW 20 million until January 31, 2009, respectively, until July 31, 2009, and KRW 20 million shall be paid until July 31, 2009, respectively, and the remainder of KRW 20 million shall be paid from the plaintiff to the plaintiff by January 31, 2010.

2. If the defendant delays the payment at any time, he/she shall immediately lose the benefit of the time and shall pay the full amount of the payable amount and the interest calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day after the above payment date to the day of full payment.

''

B. On July 31, 2008, the defendant repaid 20 million won to D on July 31, 2008, and thereafter, the defendant did not repay the debt due to the conciliation in this case.

C. The Plaintiff, a creditor of D, filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the Seoul Central District Court 200Kahap62464 as the claim claim amounting to KRW 328,614,715, based on the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2000Gahap64 regarding D, and filed an application for a seizure and collection order with respect to the claim based on the instant conciliation period under the Seoul Central District Court 2009 TaT303. On March 5, 2009, the order for seizure and collection was issued (hereinafter “instant order for seizure and collection”).

The original copy of the instant order of seizure and collection was served on March 9, 2009 to the Defendant, who is the garnishee.

[This case’s claim for a loan held by the obligor (D) against the garnishee (Defendant) is indicated in the written decision on the seizure and collection order. However, since the loan claims held by D against the Defendant were claims based on the instant adjustment, the claims to be seized were specified as claims based on the instant adjustment] [this case’s ground for recognition]] without dispute, the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1, and the whole pleadings are all made.