1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,549,179 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 20% per annum from May 9, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

In light of the facts without dispute between the parties, evidence Nos. 1-2, and evidence Nos. 1-2, and 2-2, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Ulsan District Court (2014Dadan28151) against the defendant, and recommended that the company pay the plaintiff the amount of the claim to the plaintiff. The settlement recommendation is finalized. Based on the above judgment claim, the plaintiff issued a collection order to the defendant by requesting the defendant to seize and collect the defendant as the third debtor based on the above judgment claim, with the "amount until it reaches the above claim amount out of the service price claim (such as the construction price which the debtor manufactures and installs the industrial machinery possessed by the third debtor, and has been ordered to install the machinery to the third debtor, and the service price claim (the Mexico GaM vehicle SLP factory, etc.) is to be paid."

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay 34,549,179 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

The defendant bears five obligations for the construction cost of the case No. 1, and the defendant asserts that the seizure and collection order of this case is null and void because the seized claim is not specified.

However, the claim for the seizure and collection of this case was recognized as "the service payment claim (the construction payment, etc. that the debtor has manufactured and installed the industrial machinery for the third debtor and received in return for the work payment (the construction payment, etc. that is paid for the Mexico car SLP factory, etc.)" as above, and it was sufficiently specified in light of the contents of the claim. Thus, this part of the defendant

The defendant is a stock company between the case and the defendant.