1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 27, 2012, Nonparty C deposited KRW 10,000,000 as the principal deposit in the case of suspending compulsory execution by Busan District Court Decision 2012Kao1826, the Defendant as the principal deposit.

(hereinafter “Deposit of this case”). (b)

On February 25, 2013, the Defendant filed a motion with the Busan District Court for the determination of the amount of litigation costs against the loan case in Busan District Court 201Da13083, and on February 25, 2013, the above court decided that the Defendant’s reimbursement to Nonparty C was KRW 4,664,070.

(C) Busan District Court 2013Kao-46, hereinafter referred to as "the final decision on the costs of lawsuit in this case").

According to the final determination of the amount of the litigation costs of this case, the Defendant received a collection order of the deposited claim against the non-party C as to the non-party C’s deposited claim against the non-party Korea.

(hereinafter “Order for the collection of seizure of this case”)

D. On April 2015, the Defendant received all the claim amount based on the seizure collection order of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 8 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. A lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit in case where a third party, who holds ownership or right to restrain transfer or transfer of the object of compulsory execution, infringes on the ownership or right thereof and seeks to exclude enforcement of compulsory execution that is practically being carried out. Thus, in case where a lawsuit of demurrer by a third party is filed after the completion of compulsory execution concerned, or compulsory execution that existed at the time of filing a lawsuit by a third party is terminated during the proceeding of a lawsuit by a third party

(Supreme Court Decision 96Da49049 delivered on October 10, 1997). B.

According to the above facts of recognition ex officio, the defendant, after the filing of the lawsuit in this case, has all the claims based on the seizure collection order of this case around April 2015.