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

A. The Plaintiff’s claim against C, etc. was appealed by the Jeonju District Court Decision 2013Gahap7706, Jeonju District Court Decision 2014Na3783, which became final and conclusive around that time, and dismissed on June 16, 2016.

of 124,241,720 won and damages for delay have been incurred by filing a lawsuit claiming the price of goods.

(hereinafter “Claims against the instant C”) B.

C’s claim against the Defendant (defensive claim) is C’s father and wife, and C had completed D’s business registration in the name of the Defendant on September 10, 2010, following C’s decision of individual rehabilitation or bankruptcy, and C had received the payment of goods such as over-day, etc. from the account in the name of the Defendant, and had collected the payment of the goods from time to time.

C. On November 29, 2017, the Plaintiff: (a) applied for a seizure and collection order as the Jeonju District Court 2017TT No. 2017T, with respect to the amount up to KRW 206,724,606 among the claims against the Defendant against C as the preserved right; and (b) obtained the above order of seizure and collection on November 29, 2017; and (c) the above order was served to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers where there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment as to the cause of claim defense that "The defendant's parent C and E, from time to time deposited in the passbook under the name of the defendant, used the proceeds of operation by withdrawing from time to time, and the proceeds of the goods received from the transaction partner are not remaining before receiving the collection order, etc. of this case, and the defendant's passbook does not have the proceeds of the goods to be returned to C, and thus the proceeds of the goods to be returned to C are almost little." Thus, the defendant's claim for seizure and collection order for non-existent claims is invalid, and Supreme Court Decision 2003Da37426 Decided October 24, 2003.