1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on April 30, 2015 by the High Government District Court in the distribution procedures B B, the same court is the dividend table.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 28, 2014, the Plaintiff, as the debtor and the third debtor, was subject to the Seoul Northern District Court Order 2014Kadan2273 (hereinafter “Seoul Northern District Court”) regarding KRW 6,60,000, out of the construction cost claims held by the debtor company with respect to flexible engineering, and the said Order reached the due process engineering on June 2, 2014.

B. On October 23, 2014, the Defendant received the order of seizure and collection from the Jung-gu District Court High Court Decision 2014TTY 2014TY 14247, with respect to “the debtor company against the third debtor who is a joint beneficiary” as the third debtor, and the Defendant reached the order of seizure and collection on October 27, 2014.

C. Under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, one engineering deposited KRW 31,384,023 as the Jung-gu District Court High Court Order 2014No3562, on the ground that there was a decision to impose a provisional attachment, seizure and assignment order, a claim seizure and collection order against the debtor company for the obligation to pay the construction price to the debtor company.

On April 30, 2015, the above court drafted a distribution schedule to the Plaintiff to deposit KRW 289,378 to the Defendant, and KRW 2,525,869 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the above order is invalid because the amount of the claim by the garnishee is not specified in the order of seizure and collection received by the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant concludes a contract with the joint performance method as a joint contractor, and the construction cost shall also be borne jointly by the ordering person.