1. Defendant C’s KRW 5,926,690 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 30, 201 to January 9, 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. The Taeyang-do Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoyang-do”) supplied medicine to the Sinsan Hospital affiliated with Seoul National University Hospital, and held 248,249,522 won goods payment claim against Seoul National University Hospital (hereinafter “instant goods payment claim”).

B. Taeyang-do transferred the instant claim for the price of the goods in this case to the defendant party, 2. D Co., Ltd., 3 defendant Daksan Inc. (the changed trade name before the changed trade name), KSS Co., Ltd., 4, chip Co., Ltd., echip, chip, 6. 6. 6. 6. The assignment notice to Seoul National University University Hospital was delivered to the Seoul National University University Hospital in the following order by giving notice of the assignment of each of the claims to the Seoul National University Hospital.

The assignment of each of the instant claims by the transferee on April 30, 2004 on April 30, 2004: 150,000,000,000 as of the arrival date of the notice of the assignment of the original credit; 50,000,000 on April 16, 200 on April 16, 2004; hereinafter the same shall apply to the case 84,00,000,00 for 330,00 on May 4, 2004 on May 4, 2004, 70,000 for 1,50,000 for 330,00 on May 4, 2004, 204; and

C. The Seoul National University Hospital received a notice of multiple assignment of claims in excess of the above amount with respect to the above goods payment obligation, and thereafter delivered the notice of provisional seizure of claims by Defendant B and C. On July 9, 2004, as to KRW 248,249,52 of the above goods price by the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2004, Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2004, July 9, 2004, it deposited money pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Act on the grounds that the deposited person is the debtor's act of development and transfer of claims or the transferee of claims, and that the deposited person cannot be known as the creditor of the deposited money pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the grounds that there are multiple provisional seizures.