1.(a)

A part of the counterclaim against the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

B. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) and the co-defendant of the first instance trial.

1. Basic facts

A. During the period from February 8, 2013 to April 2, 2013, the Plaintiff supplied the structural metal products to Co-Defendant A Co-Defendant Company A (hereinafter “A”) of the first instance trial, but did not receive KRW 17,779,256 as the price for goods.

B. On May 6, 2013, A transferred to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to the above amount out of the claim for the refund of the deposit for factory site D in Mineyang-si (hereinafter “instant transfer of claim”), obtained certification from a notary public, and notified the transfer of claim at the time of opticalyang-si to the Plaintiff on May 6, 2013, and notified the transfer of claim at the time of opticalyang-si and reached the time of opticalyang-si.

C. Meanwhile, the co-defendant B of the first instance trial also received a claim for the refund of deposit amounting to KRW 5,387,124 from A, and notified it at the time of mining, and notified it at the time of mining. The notification was delivered on May 8, 2013.

On November 22, 2013, the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Defendant”) received a claim attachment and collection order under the Gwangju District Court’s 2013TTT Branch 2013TT 8993 with the amount of claim KRW 35,50,000 from the obligor A and the third obligor A and the third obligor B on November 22, 2013. This reached the Gwangju District Court’s Gwangju District Court’s order of attachment and collection on November 26, 2013.

E. On November 27, 2013, the Defendant New Zealand received a claim attachment and collection order as the amount of KRW 300,000,000 from the Gwangju District Court’s 2013TTT 9121, using the debtor A and the third debtor as mining-si and claim amounting to KRW 300,000,00,00, and this reached the Gwangju District Court’s Mayang-si on November 29, 2013.

F. Mineyang-si deposited KRW 21,591,560 on December 4, 2013, on the ground that the sum of the acquisition amount of the Plaintiff and Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial exceeds the deposit, and that the said sum has reached the claim seizure and assignment order, collection order, etc. of the Defendants, etc. after the delivery date of the said notification.

【Fact that there has been no dispute, entry in Gap 1 through 9 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the notification of the assignment of claims by the plaintiff and the co-defendant B of the first instance trial reached the same date, respectively.