1. The Defendant’s loan case No. 2015Na43010 against the Plaintiff and the Seoul Central District Court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for a loan claim against the Seoul Central District Court 2014Da202057, and rendered a judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 20,000 Republic of China’s money and 5% interest per annum from December 1, 2008 to July 17, 2015, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of complete payment.” The Plaintiff appealed against this judgment and appealed by the Plaintiff 2015Na43010 to the same court (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The judgment became final and conclusive around the time when the judgment became final and conclusive that “the Plaintiff shall pay the Defendant 200,000 Chinese currency and 5% interest per annum from May 1, 2010 to February 2, 2016 to the date of full payment.”

B. On September 2016, the Defendant, based on the instant judgment, filed an application for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Hana Bank as the Daegu District Court 2016TTTTT1361, which was KRW 46,178,113, and the said court issued a seizure and collection order on September 13, 2016, and reached the Hana Bank at that time.

C. Meanwhile, around July 2009, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff with the People's Court of the People's Court of the Republic of China for the lawsuit against the plaintiff on April 1, 2010, and was sentenced to the above court No. 372, "the plaintiff shall pay interest within 100,000 Chinese money to the defendant within 10 days from the date this judgment became effective and the interest rate for the motive fuel fund announced by the People's Bank of China was paid from September 22, 2009 to the defendant within 10,000 Chinese money and from September 22, 2009, and if the plaintiff fails to perform the obligation to pay money within the period designated by the Chinese judgment, the debt interest on the implementation period delayed pursuant to Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Act of the People's Republic of China should be paid as a double (hereinafter "China judgment") and the above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

The plaintiff is the defendant.