A Company E (hereinafter “instant Company E”) with the indication of the claim for judgment as to the claim against Defendant C (hereinafter “instant Company”) has the sales price claim against Defendant C in accordance with the final and conclusive recommendation for performance of the claim for the purchase price claim in Jeonju District Court 2018 A, and Plaintiff A received a seizure and collection order as to the instant company’s above purchase price claim in 16,549,980 out of the purchase price claim against Defendant C as Jeonju District Court 2020, and issued a seizure and collection order as to the instant company’s above purchase price claim in 34725. The above seizure and collection order was served on Defendant C on June 4, 2020.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to Plaintiff A delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

According to the evidence evidence No. 1 and No. 2 of Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act (Presumption of Confession caused by Defendant’s Absence) of the Civil Procedure Act, the company of this case received a seizure and collection order against KRW 24,446,070 from among the purchase price claims owned by Defendant D according to the decision of the former District Court 2020 on May 19, 2020 and 34725 on June 4, 2020, pursuant to the previous District Court 2018, the company of this case received a seizure and collection order against the above claim and collection order against Defendant D on June 4, 2020.

According to the above facts, Defendant D is obligated to pay the collection amount of KRW 24,446,070 and delayed damages to Plaintiff B, except in extenuating circumstances.

1) Defendant D’s defense is asserted to the effect that the above sales price claim against the company of this case, prior to being served with the seizure and collection order, was extinguished due to repayment or exemption.

According to the purport of the whole theory and changes of evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 1 and 2, the company of this case is the defendant.