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

The Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order as to each claim for construction price against the Defendants of C by the same court 201Kadan6745, with the claim of KRW 56,718,500 as the claim for the return of construction price against C, which was served on the Defendants by December 6, 201.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for the return of the construction price under the Changwon District Court Decision 2011Da11064.

On September 21, 2012, the above court rendered a ruling to recommend settlement that “C shall pay 53,000,000 won to the Plaintiff up to December 15, 2012. If C fails to pay the above amount by the payment date, then C shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the date of payment to the date of full payment.” This is finalized as is.

The Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order from the same court 2012TT 5039, which transferred provisional seizure to the original seizure. This was delivered to the Defendants by March 7, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff asserts that the defendants are liable to pay the amount stated in the claim, i.e., the amount for which the seizure and collection order was issued, as the collection right holder, to the plaintiff as the collection right holder.

However, in a claim for collection, the plaintiff has the responsibility to prove not only the existence of the collection order and the delivery to the third debtor, but also the existence of the claim against the third debtor (the defendant) of the debtor (C).

Since a collection order is issued without examining the substantive existence of the claim, it cannot be deemed that the claim for collection exists immediately only by the existence of the collection order.

However, even if all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is examined, it is unclear whether C's claim for construction cost against the Defendants exists and also recognized.