1. The defendant shall transfer to the plaintiff the claims in the annexed sheet and notify the transfer of claims to the Republic of Korea.

2...

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 3, 2013, the Defendant received a claim amounting to C with respect to the claim amounting to 145,245,479, the claim amounting to the claim amounting to 145,245,479, and a collection order (Seoul Eastern District Court 2013TTTTTT1430, and hereinafter referred to as the “Sland Construction”) from the Seoul Eastern District Court.

B. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff received a collection order (2014TTT 17015) for the claim amounting to 750,217,807 as to the claim for return of unjust enrichment against Ireland Construction C.

On October 27, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred the claim of KRW 750,217,807 to C according to the above collection order to D and notified C of the transfer.

C. On October 30, 2014, C deposited KRW 162,179,798 on grounds of attachment competition and reported the reasons for deposit.

From the distribution procedure (E) to December 23, 2014, the distribution schedule was prepared to distribute the amount (the defendant: 26,313,675 won, D: 135,914,645 won) distributed to the defendant and D in proportion to the claim amount under each collection order.

The defendant raised an objection against the total amount of D's dividends on the date of distribution.

E. Since then, a judgment was rendered on March 18, 2015, stating that “The amount of dividends to the Defendant shall be KRW 145,245,479, and the amount of dividends to D shall be KRW 16,982,841, respectively,” which the Defendant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against D (2014Gahap1403) to the Defendant against D.

The summary of the above judgment is as follows.

“The Plaintiff received a collection order, and thus, does not transfer or belong to the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff is merely granted the authority to collect claims against Grand Construction C, and such collection authority cannot be independently disposed of or transferred by means of assignment of claims. Therefore, since the Plaintiff’s act of transfer is null and void, dividends against D based on the premise that it is valid is unlawful.”

3.2