2. The total cost of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff, including the cost of supplementary participation.

A. On July 9, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a payment order claiming payment of the price of goods with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014 tea37893 against the beneficiary company (hereinafter “beneficiary company”), and the said court has the same year.

7. 15. 15. The beneficiary company paid to the Plaintiff KRW 371,812,251 and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the service of the payment order to the day of complete payment. The payment order of this case was issued (hereinafter "the payment order of this case"). The payment order of this case was the same year.

8.6. Finality was established.

B. On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for a seizure and collection order under the Seoul Central District Court 2015TTTTTT13279, and on June 9, 2015, the said court rendered a decision to seize and collect “the portion of the amount that reaches 166,131,951 won out of the amount of the goods purchased by the Defendant, who is the garnishee, the debtor,” and the instant collection order was served on the Defendant on June 11, 2015.

【Ground of recognition】 Each description of evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the beneficiary company is obligated to pay KRW 126,00,000 as requested by the plaintiff, since the beneficiary company entered into a contract with the defendant to manufacture and supply the same amount as KRW 160,000,000 with the total price of KRW 160,000.

As to this, the Defendant and the Intervenor joining the Defendant (hereinafter “Supplementary Intervenor”) transferred the status of the above contract to the Intervenor before the seizure collection order of this case was served to the Defendant, and thus, they asserted to the purport that there is no claim for the price of goods against the Defendant by the beneficiary company.

B. (1) In full view of the entries in Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the judgment is made.