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

Cheong-gu Office

On August 12, 2014, the Defendant, based on the original copy of the provisional seizure order of claims with executory power of the Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan80568 against Nonparty BBex Co., Ltd., the execution of provisional seizure against the claims listed in the separate sheet is denied.

A. On May 20, 2014,CC (the representative: the Plaintiff) entered into a contract for equipment supply between the supply price of KRW 176 million and the supply period from May 20, 2014 to July 30, 2014, and supplied equipment.

B. The Defendant holding a national tax claim against the supplementary intervenor. The supplementary intervenor supplied goods to KimD from August 30, 2013 to November 8, 2013, with a claim equivalent to OO won. The supplementary intervenor asserted that he/she filed a claim for payment of the above claim against KimD in subrogation of the supplementary intervenor who is insolvent, and filed a lawsuit with the Busan District Court Branch Decision 2014Gadan38168, Dec. 23, 2014, which became final and conclusive around that time.

C. The Defendant asserts that KimD borrowed the name of Dong-in KimE and operated the machinery manufacturing business, etc. under the name of FFN, and that it discontinued this business, borrowed the Plaintiff’s name as an employee, and continued to operate the above business. On August 12, 2014, the Defendant issued the Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan80568 with respect to the claim on the attached list (hereinafter “the claim in this case”) with respect to the claim against the above OOD as the preserved right, and issued a provisional attachment execution on the same day based on the executory exemplification (hereinafter “the execution of provisional attachment”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 5 evidence, Eul 1, 16, 17, and 19 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, while working as an employee in FFN, lent money to KimD over several occasions and paid the amount to OB. The Plaintiff collected the FFN’s claim against GGBC Co., Ltd. under its repayment, and paid it as a lease deposit for the location of the business establishment ofCC. The unpaid wage and retirement allowance claims were paid in kind as machinery owned by FFN, and it was paid in kind as an employee in FFD and actually operatedCC. The instant claim is deemed to be the Plaintiff’s claim, and thus, the execution of the provisional attachment should be denied, premised on the premise that the instant claim is the claim of KimD.

B. Determination

According to the evidence Nos. 6-1, 2, 8-1, 6, 9, and 10-1 through 5 of evidence Nos. 1, 6-2, 8-2, and 10-1, the Plaintiff was granted the Plaintiff’s title on October 16, 2013 when the OO-type O-type O-type O-type building lease contract was concluded in the name of the Plaintiff on October 16, 2013, and the O-type KRW 20 million was deposited in the name of the Plaintiff on October 31, 2013; from October 30, 2009 to June 29, 2012, the Plaintiff was paid the Plaintiff’s wage to the Plaintiff’s account in the name of Kim E-V; and the Plaintiff was granted the Plaintiff’s wage to the Plaintiff from October 2013 to 1, 2014 to 204.

However, in full view of the purport of the pleadings as a result of the fact finding that Eul operated evidence Nos. 2 and 15, Eul, and 1 and 2, and the fact finding of HH telecom Co., Ltd., KimD reported the closure of business on March 1, 1997, when it operated the machinery manufacturing business, etc. on December 1, 199. On May 30, 1999, it borrowed the name of Kim E- which is an employee and operated on May 30, 199, and reported the closure of business on October 25, 2013. The plaintiff also did not appear to have reported the closure of business on October 1, 2013. The plaintiff's allegation that the 2nd E-O's establishment was located in the name of 3rd local government 1, 2013, and that Kim Jong-D supplied the goods to the intervenor of 1,0000 local government 1,000 OMMMMM under its own name.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.