1. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2006Kahap697 decided on the acquisition amount between the Korea Asset Management Corporation and the Defendants.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 3, 1994, the Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit claiming the acquisition amount against Defendant O Chang Chang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant O Chang Chang”), A, B, etc. as Seoul Central District Court 2006Gahap69597, and on November 17, 2006, the judgment accepting all the claims against the Defendants of the Korea Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter “instant judgment”) became final and conclusive at that time.

B. On August 28, 2012, the Korea Asset Management Corporation: (a) transferred claims based on the instant judgment to the Plaintiff; and (b) granted the Plaintiff the power of representation regarding the notification of the assignment of claims.

C. The Plaintiff, on behalf of the Korea Asset Management Corporation, notified each of the instant assignment of claims on August 13, 2014 to Defendant O Chang, Defendant A, and Defendant B on October 19, 2012, but did not deliver the said notification to the Defendants on the grounds of the absence of the text of closure or the addressee’s unknown, etc.

[Reasons for Recognition] ① Defendant Haat and B: Each entry in the evidence Nos. 1 through 8, the whole purport of the pleading, and ② Defendant A: deemed confession (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. The following facts are apparent in the determination as to the cause of the claim and the record of the determination, namely, the duplicate of the complaint of this case, which contains the contents of notifying the Defendants of the transfer prior to the claim indicated in the judgment of this case, to Defendant A on September 15, 2014, to Defendant Yon, and to Defendant B on December 5, 2014, respectively, based on the facts that the obligee indicated in the judgment of this case was transferred to the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and thus, the obligee indicated in the judgment of this case was succeeded to the Plaintiff from the Korea Asset Management Corporation. As such, a junior administrative officer, etc. of the Seoul Central District Court, etc., is obligated to grant the execution clause to the Plaintiff, who is the successor to the

3. In conclusion, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is reasonable and acceptable.