1. The Daejeon District Court 2013TTY 14942 against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the seizure of claims by the Plaintiff-Counterclaim Defendant.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On May 21, 2013, the Plaintiff awarded a contract to C (hereinafter “C”) on May 21, 2013, setting the construction cost of KRW 580 million, the down payment of KRW 100 million, the starting date, June 11, 2013, and the completion date on December 15, 2013 to F (hereinafter “F”) that operates the instant construction work.

B. On January 9, 2013, the Defendant: (a) lent KRW 200 million per annum to C; (b) on June 28, 2013, the due date for repayment; and (c) on January 11, 2013, at the notary public G office affiliated with the Daejeon District Public Prosecutor’s Office, the authentic copy of the authentic deed of monetary loan for consumption with the executory power under No. 388, 2013.

C. Based on the above notarial deed, the Defendant applied for the attachment and collection order of KRW 113,659,452, out of the instant construction price claim against C with the claim amounting to KRW 113,659,452 ( Daejeon District Court 2013TTT 14942), and received the attachment and collection order of the claim on November 11, 2013 (hereinafter “instant collection order”). The original copy of the decision of the instant collection order was served on the Plaintiff, who is the garnishee, on November 13, 2013.

C was unable to complete the instant construction, and the Plaintiff, on November 1, 2013, ordered the F to enter into a contract with the payment of KRW 30 million for the remainder of the construction work, such as the internal construction and electrical distribution works, which are the completed portion of the construction.

E. On January 23, 2014, the construction contractor of the instant construction changed from C to C to C’s comprehensive construction.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 5, 6 evidence, Eul evidence 1 to 6 (including numbered evidence; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness H's testimony, inquiry results on the head of the fleet of this court, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant alleged and judged that the collection order of this case against the claim for the construction price of this case was served on the plaintiff, who is the third debtor, and therefore, the plaintiff is the defendant, the collection right holder.