1. On February 1, 2015, the Defendant’s claim for removal, labor, wage, etc. against the Plaintiff at Daejeon District Court Branch of Daejeon District Court 2015 Ghana 1321 against the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 4, 11, and 12:

The Defendant filed a claim suit against the Plaintiff, such as the Daejeon District Court Decision 2015Da1321 Decided Labor Wage, by asserting that the Defendant employed the daily employed worker at the Plaintiff’s direction and carried out the removal work of the underground room of the building in the Boan City for 15 days, but the Plaintiff did not pay the wages and expenses of 14,965,00 won.

On February 5, 2015, the above court rendered a decision of performance recommendation that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 14,965,000 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “decision of performance recommendation of this case”), and the Plaintiff did not raise an objection even after receiving it on February 9, 2015, and the decision of performance recommendation of this case became final and conclusive on February 24, 2015.

B. On May 4, 2015, the Defendant applied for a collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim for construction price against the Plaintiff’s company for construction work performance, by making the instant performance recommendation decision as the executive title, and the Daejeon District Court issued a seizure and collection order as to the said claim for construction price.

C. Along with the receipt of the above order of seizure and collection, the Daejeon District Court deposited KRW 19,000,000 for construction cost pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act as Hongsung Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court (Seoul District Court), and subsequent to the commencement of the distribution proceeding, the execution court opened a date of distribution on July 29, 2015 and presented the distribution schedule to interested parties, but the Plaintiff stated an objection against the whole amount of dividends to the Defendant, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of objection against the Defendant with executive title to the instant claim.

2. The plaintiff alleged by the parties is the defendant.