(a)as shown in the reasons for the attachment of the claim;

(b) Judgment by service based on which recognition is applicable (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Claim against Defendant C (hereinafter “Defendant C”)

A. The representative director D of Defendant 2’s assertion is the same as the representative director B of Defendant 1 company, and the auditor E of Defendant 1 is also the same as the auditor of Defendant 2 company (E is the case where the E is the case where the defendant 1 company worked in the defendant 1 company, and Eul is only the person who is formally registered as the representative director of Defendant 2 company. Of the employees of Defendant 1 company, F is the same as the representative director of Defendant 2 company, the road name of the head office and the first head office of Defendant 2 are the same as the name of the head office of Defendant 1 company on the registry of Defendant 1 company. At the present of Defendant 2 company, at the location of the head office of Defendant 1 and the head office of Defendant 2 is very close to the principal office of Defendant 1, Defendant 1, and the company’s corporate registry purpose, the total number of shares to be issued, the total number of shares issued, the total amount of capital, facsimile number, etc., and the management status or asset status of Defendant 2 company.

Therefore, Defendant 2 is obligated to repay the above amount of reimbursement owed by Defendant 1 Company to the Plaintiff.

B. If an existing company establishes a new company substantially identical in the form of the existing company in order to evade debts, this constitutes abuse of the company system in order to achieve the illegal purpose of evading debts of the existing company, and in such a case, the above two companies against the creditors of the existing company.