1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim of this case shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the parts arising from the principal lawsuit.

1. Where there exists a seizure and collection order as to the claim of this case as to the legal nature of the principal lawsuit of this case, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the third debtor, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the claims subject to seizure and collection order. Thus, the lawsuit for performance filed by the debtor against the claims subject to the seizure and collection order shall be dismissed without any need to examine and determine the principal lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da2388, Apr. 11, 200; 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008). Moreover, even if the debtor files a lawsuit seeking performance against the third debtor after the collection order was issued, the lawsuit for performance against the debtor shall be dismissed as it is illegal as the lawsuit filed by a person without standing to be the party concerned, even if the collection order was first filed by the debtor before it became final and conclusive.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Na38231 Decided November 23, 2006). In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the Health Center and the Korean Corporate Investment Company (hereinafter “Korean Corporate Investment”) received a collection order (hereinafter “the collection order related to the principal lawsuit of this case”) from the Defendant on December 28, 2016, with the Seoul Western District Court No. 2016TTTT No. 201375, Dec. 28, 2016, the claim amount of KRW 4,990,00,000 from the authentic copy of the notarial deed with the executory power of No. 337 of the 2011 Document No. 3375, Dec. 28, 2016, with the Plaintiff’s current and future provisional payment claims, subrogation and substitute payment claims, and other claims under the contract of other instructors, or with the purport that the collection order of this case was not served on the Defendant, or with the entire purport of the evidence and the entire pleadings.

Therefore, the principal lawsuit of this case against the defendant, claiming the return of the provisional payment, the subrogated payment and the substitute payment.