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

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for damages with the Seoul Central District Court 2014Gahap540121, and on December 5, 2014, the said court rendered a judgment that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 107,676,902 and the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from February 25, 2012 to December 5, 2014, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment,” and the Seoul High Court (2015Na201367) (hereinafter referred to as the appellate court) who appealed the said judgment, dismissed the said appeal on October 22, 2015.

The above judgment became final and conclusive on November 10, 2015.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court for the attachment and assignment order of claims against the Defendants, who are the garnishee, including the sum of KRW 107,676,902 and the aggregate amount of delayed damage KRW 32,893,080, and KRW 140,569,982, and the Seoul Central District Court applied for the attachment and assignment order of claims against the Defendants, who are the garnishee. The above court made a decision of acceptance on October 13, 2015.

(hereinafter “instant assignment order”). The instant assignment order was served on October 19, 2015 on the Defendants, respectively.

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was paid KRW 3,88,917 from the Defendant National Bank on August 21, 2017, based on the instant assignment order.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Gap evidence 2-1 and 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The assertion B had a deposit claim against the Defendants to the extent of the amount stated in the claim. Since each of the money was fully paid to the Plaintiff according to the assignment order of this case, the Defendants are obligated to pay each of the money to the Plaintiff.

B. Even if an assignment order on the seized monetary claim is legally issued and confirmed in the process, an assignment order is null and void if there is no seized claim when the assignment order is served on the garnishee. Therefore, the seized claim is entirely issued to the obligee.