2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On September 9, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a provisional attachment order against the Defendant regarding the above amount of the lease deposit against the Defendant under a lease agreement entered into between Jung-gu and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with the Seoul East-gu Seoul East-gu Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Kadan7362 with the claim amounting to KRW 53,00,00, and the provisional attachment order against the claim amounting to B was issued by the above court on September 9, 2013 (hereinafter “the provisional attachment order against the claim”). The provisional attachment order against the claim was served on the Defendant on September 13, 2013.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff filed a claim against B for the payment of the price for the said goods with the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Kadan155, and around April 2014, the said court rendered a judgment that “B shall pay the Plaintiff 53,014,000 won with the interest of 6% per annum from August 27, 2013 to March 4, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

C. On July 21, 2014, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014TTTT11880, the Plaintiff filed an order for the seizure and collection of the claim amounting to KRW 58,591,362, and issued the order for the seizure and collection of the claim amounting to KRW 53,014,00, the provisional seizure of KRW 53,014,00,00, as the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014TTT, and the remainder of KRW 5,577,362, the Plaintiff issued the order for the seizure and collection of the claim amounting to the Defendant B (hereinafter “instant collection order”). The instant collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, on July 28, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul Nos. 3 and 4 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties concerned is claiming the defendant to pay the collection amount according to the collection order of this case and the damages for delay.

On this issue, the defendant himself against B.