The plaintiff's ancillary claim added by this Court is dismissed.

An appeal.

A. On October 24, 2011, the Plaintiff acquired the claim amounting to KRW 59,802,000 from Nonparty D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) for the Defendant Company, and D notified the Defendant Company of the fact of the transfer of the said claim and the said notification reached October 25 of the same year.

Around that time, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant Company seeking the payment of the above transfer money as Seoul Central District Court 201Da427985.

B. As of March 22, 2012, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter “decision of recommending reconciliation in related cases”) with the following contents as of March 22, 2012, and the ruling of recommending reconciliation in related cases is the same year.

4. 20. The decision was finalized as is.

The decision shall be delivered KRW 59,802,00 upon arrival of July 1, 2015 to the Plaintiff by July 15, 2015, the Defendant shall pay KRW 59,802,00 to the Plaintiff up to July 15, 2015, and where there is a defect in the attached list (PC materials supplied to the Defendant by June 30, 2015), only the amount calculated by deducting the defect repair cost from the aforementioned KRW 59,802,00 shall be paid to the Plaintiff.

The cost of defect repair shall be the average amount calculated by the appraisal (the cost of appraisal) of multiple appraisal agencies commissioned by the plaintiff and the defendant, where the plaintiff and the defendant agree on the basis of the cost of defect repair in the defendant's side and they do not reach an agreement.

In addition to those provided for in paragraph (1), the plaintiff and the defendant confirm that they do not have any bonds and obligations with respect to each other.

The plaintiff waives the remainder of the claim.

C. On September 11, 2015, based on the decision on recommending reconciliation in related cases, the Plaintiff received a claim amounting to KRW 59,802,00 and a collection order against the deposit claims held by the Defendant Company in the E Bank as Seoul Western District Court 2015TT 11032.

On the other hand, the defendant company has an objection against the plaintiff as Seoul Central District Court 2015da531836 to the effect that the defendant company is not allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the decision of recommending reconciliation in this case.