1. The Defendants stated the list of executive titles in [Attachment 1] with respect to Haba Haba Co., Ltd. in the “ executive titles” column.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract on the installation and structural reinforcement of half-finished products provided by the Plaintiff with Hachip Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Hachip”) (hereinafter “Hachip”) and the Plaintiff.

B. The non-party company kept each of the items listed in the Plaintiff’s attached list 3 list for internal construction under the above contract. However, upon the application for compulsory execution based on the enforcement title stated in the attached list No. 1 against the non-party company, each of the items listed in the attached list No. 2, which was part of the above items, was seized.

(hereinafter “each of the instant cases’ compulsory execution”). C.

On the other hand, on October 21, 2014, Defendant D executed the delivery of a factory leased and used by the non-party company based on the pertinent title stated in the “Executive Title List of Attached Title 1, 2014,” and the execution officer revoked the possession of the non-party company in the above factory under the condition that Defendant D, the creditor, carried out a series of corporeal movables, including each of the items listed in the attached Table 3, in the above factory, and delivered them to Defendant D.

[Based on the recognition] Defendant A, B, D, E, and F: The absence of dispute, each entry and video of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5 through 12, 22, and 23, and Eul evidence No. 1 (which include the number number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the overall purport of the pleading, the entire purport of the pleading, the defendant Gap corporation, SP, and C: Confession (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. According to the above facts, according to the judgment on the claim for non-performance of compulsory execution against the Defendants, each of the items listed in the separate sheet No. 2 list is owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Defendants’ compulsory execution of this case based on the premise that each of the above items is owned by Nonparty Company

Defendant E and F may respond to the Plaintiff’s request because they seized each of the items listed in the attached Table 2 by compulsory execution following due process according to the delayed payment of wages of the non-party company.