A. The Plaintiff, who served as a teacher of D High School C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Foundation”), operated by the school foundation C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Foundation”), filed a lawsuit against Nonparty Foundation on or around April 201. On June 23, 2011, the court rendered a judgment that “The Nonparty Foundation shall pay to the Plaintiff 61,697,250 won and the amount at the rate of 20% per annum from April 28, 2011 to the date of full payment, and the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 4,774,079 per annum from April 4, 2011 to the date of retirement of the Plaintiff from Nonparty School” (the Daejeon District Court Decision 201Da10323, Jul. 15, 2011).

B. The Plaintiff, based on the above judgment, had the Defendant, at the time of establishing the non-party foundation, decided to contribute the contribution to the non-party foundation. However, on the ground that it did not perform the contribution of KRW 217,475,745, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant of the non-party foundation to seize and collect the claim amounting to KRW 310,527,835 on the ground that “the amount equivalent to KRW 310,527,835, such as the above judgment and the damages for delay, out of the claim against the Defendant of the non-party foundation and the damages for delay thereof,” and the court accepted it on November 11, 2014, and decided to issue the above claim seizure and collection order (the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Order hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”), and

【Fact-finding without a dispute over the ground for recognition】 Each entry in Gap's evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 4 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. 1) We examine whether there are claims against the Defendant of the Nonparty Foundation, which is the claim subject to the seizure and collection order of this case. In full view of the respective entries and arguments in subparagraphs A through 11, the Defendant is the Superintendent of the Provincial Office of Education (hereinafter “superintendent of education”) on February 18, 2002.

The approval of the establishment of the non-party school is granted.