1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on October 26, 201 by the same court with respect to the distribution procedure case of Busan District Court Branch C.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant Haex Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Haex”)’s issuance of gift certificates and payment guarantee 1 of Nonparty Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd”). Defendant Haex was designated as an issuer of gift certificates on August 19, 2005 by the Korea Game Industry Development Institute (former Korea Game Industry Development Institute) and issued “voluntary sharing our cultural gift certificates” until February 2007. 2) The said gift certificates can be used as cash in a franchise store that the holder entered into a contract with Defendant Haex, and the franchise store that received the said gift certificates filed a claim against the above Defendant. The above Defendant entered into a guarantee insurance contract with Seoul Guarantee Insurance Co., Ltd. and the above merchandise coupon holders as the insured.

3) In the event that Defendant Haex did not pay gift certificates to the franchise store, pursuant to the above guarantee insurance contract, the Seoul Guarantee Insurance paid the gift certificates to the holder within the limit of KRW 300,000 per capita, and thereafter exercising the right to indemnity against the above Defendant. The above Defendant, for the purpose of securing the liability for indemnity against the Seoul Guarantee Insurance, has the right to demand the return of the security as above, as to the fixed deposit claim amounting to KRW 4.32 billion against the National Bank of Korea (hereinafter “National Bank”), the fixed deposit claim amounting to KRW 1.5 billion against the Korea Bank of Korea (hereinafter “Korea Bank”), and each bearer deposit claim amounting to KRW 1.5 billion against the New Bank of Korea (hereinafter “New Bank”), as indicated in the attached list of the issuance of the new Bank of Korea (hereinafter “New Bank”) (hereinafter “New Deposit Deposit Certificate”). Accordingly, Defendant Haex had the right to demand the return of the security provided.

B. The instant assignment contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is concluded.