1. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, Inc., Ltd., the Incheon District Court No. 9026, Dec. 10, 2013.

1 Basic facts

A. On July 23, 2013, the Plaintiff acquired the claim equivalent to KRW 425,068,839, out of the claim for the purchase price of the goods from the Defendant Company Ehym Co., Ltd. from the Defendant Company Ehym Co., Ltd., and notified Ehym Co., Ltd of the fact of the transfer of the claim on July 24, 2013, by content-certified mail, which is a certificate with a fixed date.

B. Although Natived Co., Ltd. had the obligation to pay for the goods amounting to KRW 224,961,949 against Defendant Lived Co., Ltd., the obligation to pay for the goods, there were several claims, provisional seizure, and assignment of claims regarding Defendant Lived Co., Ltd., and the validity thereof is doubtful, on December 10, 2013, the Incheon District Court issued a concurrent deposit of KRW 224,961,949 (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”) with the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the grounds that there was a conflict between the creditor probability and the claims seizure, provisional seizure, etc. on December 10, 2013.

C. The reasons for the deposit of this case, the amount of provisional attachment or transfer of claims by the plaintiff and the defendants, the date of service of the original copy of provisional attachment decision against Donmod Co., Ltd., or the date of service of notice of assignment of claims are as shown in the attached Table.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In a case where a debtor made a mixed deposit due to the occurrence of both the reasons for repayment deposit and the reasons for execution deposit, in order for the transferee of the claim to pay the deposit, he/she shall submit in writing a written consent of other parties to the deposit and the creditors’ consent of seizure and provisional seizure, or a confirmation judgment, etc. certifying their legal relationship against them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da56015, Jan. 17, 2008). As such, the Plaintiff seek confirmation that the claim for payment of the deposit of this case against the remaining Defendants, the initial creditor, as the creditor of the Defendant Cargo Co., Ltd. and the creditor of provisional seizure or the transferee of the claim, who is another