1. As to the amount of KRW 47,300,00, which was deposited by Twitman with the Seoul Southern District Court No. 2129 in 2016.

1. As to the facts in the separate sheet of claim as to the determination of the cause of claim, the remaining Defendants, other than the Plaintiff and Defendant D, are deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, and between the Plaintiff and Defendant D, by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the respective statements in subparagraphs 1 through 11, and according to the above facts acknowledged, the notice of assignment of claims issued on February 22, 2016 between Traba and the Plaintiff reached the Defendants’ notice of assignment of claims, the original copy of the provisional attachment decision, or the seizure collection order, and thus, the Plaintiff has the right to claim payment of KRW 47,300,000 as to the instant deposit money.

2. As to Defendant D’s assertion, Defendant D asserts that the act of transferring his claim against each of the instant companies, the sole property of which is the only property under the delayed payment of wages to employees, constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.

Where an obligor performs a legal act aimed at a property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the obligee can file a lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act with the court, but cannot be asserted as an attack and defense in the lawsuit. Thus, Defendant D’s assertion is without merit to further examine it.

3. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and all of them are accepted.