1. The defendant's judgment on the defendant's claim for loans 2004Gadan22394 against the defendant's High Government District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 6, 2005, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim under this Court Order 2004Kadan22394, and was sentenced to a judgment in favor of the Defendant in full (hereinafter “instant judgment”) that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 85 million and the amount calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from August 18, 2005 to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

B. The Plaintiff filed an appeal to suspend compulsory execution on June 14, 2006 upon filing an application to suspend compulsory execution (hereinafter “instant deposit”) and deposited KRW 85 million with the Seoul Central District Court No. 8819, 2006 (hereinafter “instant deposit”), and received a decision to suspend compulsory execution on June 14, 2006.

C. The above appellate court (Seoul High Court 2005Na112989) rendered a judgment dismissing an appeal on October 11, 2006 on the ground that the plaintiff's subsequent appeal is unlawful, and the judgment of this case became final and conclusive around that time.

According to the judgment of this case, the defendant received the seizure and collection order against the plaintiff's right to claim the recovery of the deposit of this case as of December 1, 2006 by the court 2006TT4393, and the defendant applied for the cancellation of security as to the deposit of this case by subrogation of the plaintiff as the collection creditor, and received the revocation of security on December 21, 2006.

The above decision of revocation of security was submitted on January 12, 2007 in the deposit case of this case.

E. Meanwhile, on November 15, 2006, 2006, the Seoul Central District Court 2006Kadan7258, which is the defendant's creditor, obtained a provisional seizure order against the defendant's claim for the payment of the deposit of this case, and the above decision reached the third debtor's Republic of Korea (the public official in charge of Seoul Central District Court deposit) on November 20, 2006.

Accordingly, the defendant did not pay the deposit money of this case.

[Grounds for recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On January 12, 2007, the Plaintiff submitted a letter of decision on revocation of security to the deposit of the instant case, and the Defendant was in the status of immediately receiving the deposit of the instant case, and thus, Sejong Construction Co., Ltd.