1. On July 4, 2017, Nonparty D Co., Ltd deposited as 82,060,000 won by the Seoul Central District Court No. 1336 of 2017.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 15, 2017, the Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff the claim amounting to KRW 82,060,000 against the non-party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party D”) for the purpose of repaying the Plaintiff’s debt amounting to KRW 82,060,000 (hereinafter “transfer of claim”). On or around the 17th of the same month, the Defendant notified the non-party company of the transfer by content-certified mail with a fixed date.

B. On May 10, 2017, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (Counterclaim Plaintiff; hereinafter “Counterclaim Plaintiff”) filed an application for provisional attachment against the above claim amount (excluding claims prohibited from seizure pursuant to Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, Article 88 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry, and Enforcement Decree of the same Act) out of the Defendant’s claims for the payment of goods, such as Gangwon-do Branch of the Incheon District Court (2017Kahap10212), with the claim amounting to KRW 366,05,397, and the claim amount against the Defendant as the right to preserve the goods, and received the provisional attachment order from the above support on May 17, 2017. The above decision was served on Nonparty Co. on May 24, 2017.

C. On July 4, 2017, Nonparty Company: (a) made a mixed deposit of KRW 82,060,000, which is the fact of the cause of deposit, to the Seoul Central District Court under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act; and (b) Articles 291 and 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act; (c) the deposited person is the Defendant or the Plaintiff; and (d) made a combined deposit

A non-party company intended to repay the price of KRW 209,667,491 to the Defendant, but was notified by the Defendant on May 17, 2017 that part of the above claim would be transferred to the Plaintiff. On May 24, 2017, the creditor was served with the order of provisional seizure of claim 2017Kahap10121, the Lessee, the Counterclaim Plaintiff. On June 30, 2017, the above assignment of claim constitutes a fraudulent act, and was issued a business cooperation letter that the said assignment of claim would not be paid.

Therefore, the non-party company is unable to judge the invalidity of the above assignment of claims, and it is deposited together with the repayment deposit and the execution deposit.

Grounds for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, each 1,2, Eul 9, 10, 14;