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

A. On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (the Jeju District Court 2013TTTT1741) against the claim for the refund of lease deposit (hereinafter “the claim for refund of lease deposit of this case”) based on the lease contract for performance halls and dormitories in Jeju Special Self-Governing Province, which was held by the D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) on the basis of an executory deed, No. 614, 2012, which was executed by a notary public against D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), and the said decision was served on the third development.

B. On September 26, 2013, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (the Jeju District Court 2013TTTT 5692) regarding the claim for the refund of the lease deposit of this case on September 26, 2013, based on the foregoing preceding judgment to the effect that D filed a lawsuit against D for the claim for performance fee, etc., and that D would pay USD 249,780.13, and delay damages therefor, and that D would be paid to the Defendant, and the above decision was served on third development.

C. The High Court deposited KRW 522,043,010 as the Daegu District Court 2014Hun107, on the grounds of the attachment competition. In the Jeju District Court C distribution procedure for the said deposit, the said court drafted a distribution schedule that distributes dividends of KRW 35,036,413 and KRW 41,45,593 of the dividends of KRW 35,036,413 to the Plaintiff among the dividends of KRW 359,483,673 and the dividends of KRW 359,483,67 and KRW 41,45,593 of the dividends of KRW 37,328,607 and KRW 44,167,746 of the dividends of KRW 5,746 to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution, and raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant, and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution on April 25, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 5, and Eul evidence 1.