1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff entered into a goods supply contract with the Korea Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Industry”), and supplied the Korea Industry with the goods, such as pipes, but did not receive KRW 107,309,818 from the Korea Industry.

Accordingly, on April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order (Seoul District Court Decision 2014Kahap10090, 107, 309, 818 won, hereinafter “instant provisional attachment order”) with respect to the claim for the amount of goods that the Korean industry holds against the Defendant (the former transactional name company prior to the change) and the Sung-Non Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “TN”), and the said decision was served on the Defendant on April 9, 2014.

C. On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Korean industry seeking the payment of KRW 107,309,818 for the goods price and the delay damages (Seoul District Court 2014Gahap9857). On November 20, 2014, the Plaintiff rendered a favorable judgment against the Plaintiff, and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

On December 9, 2014, based on an executory exemplification of the judgment in the Busan District Court case No. 2014Gahap9857, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) against KRW 57,309,818 from among the goods payment claims that the Korean industry holds against the Defendant by the Busan District Court Decision No. 2014, Dec. 9, 2014. The said order was served on the Defendant on December 11, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged by the parties sought the collection amount equivalent to the claim stated in the collection order in accordance with the collection order in this case and the damages for delay.

In regard to this, the Defendant is “goods-price claim” as stated in the attachment of the collection order of this case and the indication of the claim to be collected. Since the Korean industry holds against the Defendant, the above labor cost claim is “labor cost claim”, the above labor cost claim.