1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 54,775,840 as well as 15% per annum from August 1, 2017 to the date of full payment.

1. Expiration of a collection order and seizure of the claim;

A. Claim provisional attachment 1) The Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment of claim against the Defendant in Korea, in relation to the claim for construction cost (the amount until the claim is filed, excluding the wage to be paid to the employees of the said facility work out of the construction cost, such as fire fighting, etc., among the construction work in the Dong-si, the amount of which is included) against the Defendant in Korea, the Bank of Korea, as the right to preserve the claim amounting to KRW 53,822,00, in relation to the amount of the purchase price of the loan in Korea. (2) On May 1, 2017, the Plaintiff received the decision of provisional attachment of claim with the Daegu District Court Decision 2017Kadan31025, May 8, 201

B. On April 25, 2017, the Plaintiff received an order to pay the amount of KRW 53,822,000 per annum from the day following the delivery date of the payment order to the day of full payment with respect to the purchase price of goods in Daegu District Court Decision 2017 tea2098, the Plaintiff received an order to pay the amount of KRW 53,82,000 per annum to the day of full payment.

On April 28, 2017, the above payment order was served on the Loenna Co., Ltd., and it was finalized on May 13, 2017.

C. On June 12, 2017, the Plaintiff issued a collection order under the Daegu District Court 2017TTT8241, supra.

The provisional attachment of the amount of 53,822,00 won based on the decision of provisional attachment as stated in the above paragraph was made to the effect that the provisional attachment of the amount of 53,82,00 won was made as the provisional attachment, and 953,840 won was seized (the provisional attachment of the above provisional attachment claim of 884,740 won for delay damages and 69,100 won for demand procedure and the execution claim of 69,100 won was seized) and the above provisional attachment claims can be collected.

On June 26, 2017, the above ruling was served on the Defendant. D.

The defendant's obligation to pay the construction cost bears the obligation to pay the construction cost exceeding the attached amount of the claim as above in relation to UN.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1, 2, and 3 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of recognition of the obligation to pay the collection amount, the defendant shall pay the collection amount to the plaintiff who is a collection right holder 54,75.