1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 26, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) obtained a provisional attachment order from the Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan37031 with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement of KRW 70,505,140 as the Plaintiff’s claim against F with respect to the third obligor of Seoul National University Hospital; and (b) obtained a provisional attachment order from the Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan37031 on July 11, 2012 on the basis of an executory exemplification of a personal rehabilitation case against F, the Seoul Central District Court 2008Da4000 on July 11, 2012 on the debtor F’s third obligor of Seoul Central University Hospital with respect to the debtor’s claim for reimbursement against F, such as the wage, etc. to the Seoul Central District Court 2012TT

(hereinafter referred to as “the seizure and collection order,” which transfers the provisional seizure to the main seizure.

The Defendants also received a collection order for F’s payment to F’s third debtor F’s Seoul National University Hospital as follows.

1) On January 20, 2011, Defendant B is the authentic copy of a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the executory power of No. 2832, 2010, which is executed by a notary public on January 20, 2011 (hereinafter “instant 1 execution deed”).

Based on the foregoing, Seoul Northern District Court Order 201TB1T1T 1319 (the claimed amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the collection order of the first claim of this case) is deemed to be “the seizure and collection order of this case.”

(2) On June 9, 2011, Defendant C received a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim (amounting to KRW 90,000,000, hereinafter “the collection order for the second claim of this case”) from the Seoul Northern District Court under the Seoul Northern District Court’s order for the seizure and collection of the claim (hereinafter “the collection order for the second claim of this case”) based on the authentic copy of a promissorysory note, which has an executory power under No. 660, 2010, issued by a notary public under No. 660, 2010.

3) On January 2, 2012, Defendant D is an executory exemplification of a promissory note No. 978, 2008, i.e., the notarial deed drawn up by a notary public (hereinafter “instant third execution deed”).

Based on the Seoul Northern District Court 201TTBT 28891.