1. The distribution procedure case of Seoul Western District Court is included in the distribution schedule prepared by the same court on May 24, 2016.

A. The Plaintiff is liable to prove the cause of occurrence and, in the event that the Plaintiff claims that the claim was invalid or extinguished by means of a false declaration as a conspiracy with others, the Plaintiff is liable to prove the cause of disability or extinguishment.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da39617 Decided July 12, 2007). A.

Comprehensively taking account of the Defendant’s written statements in subparagraphs 3 through 5 (including paper numbers) of the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of goods against Hong Kong U.S. (hereinafter “this case’s hot water export”) and the fact that the Defendant exported ions equivalent to KRW 2,033,250,819 (hereinafter “this case’s hot water export”) from February 22 to October 22, 2013 to October 22, 2014 with respect to the Seoul Customs Office of this Court.

B. There is no dispute over the fact that the Defendant’s termination of the Defendant’s claim for the purchase price of goods against Hong Kong Hong Kong (hereinafter “Korea Bank 920 account”) received the transfer of KRW 1,869,348,724 from the Hong Kong Hong Kong Bank 1*************9,348,724 in total from the Defendant’s name with respect to the export of the ionion of this case from the 2013 and 2014.

In addition, in full view of the statements in the evidence No. 9-1, No. 9-2, the fact-finding results of the fact-finding and the whole purport of the arguments by this court, the defendant received US$465,569 in total from overseas enterprises, including Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as "Korean bank 529 account") in the name of the defendant in 2013 and 2014, and from the foreign enterprises including Hong Kong (hereinafter referred to as " Hong Kong Hong Kong M&), the sum of USD 1************529 in the name of the defendant. ② However, the defendant exported 2,03,250,819 won to Hong Kong M& in the year 2013 and 2014, while it can be recognized that goods exported to other foreign enterprises than Hong Kong M&D were merely USD 240,902 in total, and there was no other evidence to prove that there was no other transaction between the defendant, other than Hong Kong M&D.