1. Of the instant lawsuit, Suwon District Court Decision 201Ga1335 decided April 11, 201, which decided on April 201, 201, against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Article 208 (3) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act applicable to Acts and subordinate statutes;

3. There is no benefit to seek denial of a compulsory execution by an action of demurrer against a claim any longer after the compulsory execution based on the executive title has been completed as a whole, on the part of rejection, and after the creditor has satisfied as a whole.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da52489 Decided April 25, 1997, etc.). In this case, the defendant collected KRW 78,50,00 from the Republic of Korea after obtaining a seizure and collection order as to the plaintiff's claim for the construction price against the Republic of Korea on April 11, 2013, based on the judgment with executory power over the claim for the purchase price of goods 201Gau2335 decided on April 11, 2013, Incheon District Court 2013 Tau13807 decided May 8, 2013, and collected KRW 808,502 from the Nonghyup Bank upon obtaining a seizure and collection order as to the plaintiff's claim for the construction price against the Republic of Korea on October 16, 2013, it is deemed that the defendant led to the confession by the defendant under the main text of Article 150(3) and the main text of the Civil Procedure Act.

According to the above facts, compulsory execution on the part of KRW 79,392,502 (i.e., KRW 808,502 + KRW 78,584,000) among compulsory execution based on the above judgment has already been completed, and therefore, the part on this part of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.