1. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2010Gahap31063 decided on the acquisition amount between the Korea Asset Management Corporation and the Defendants.

1. Indication of claim;

A. The Japanese Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Japan Bank”) filed a lawsuit claiming the performance of the obligation to pay indemnity based on the loan agreement dated April 16, 1994, the obligation to pay loans under the bond guarantee agreement dated July 16, 1993 (Seoul District Court Decision 200Ra1257) against the Geumsan Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Seoul Construction”) and the Defendants, etc., and filed it on June 27, 200 (Seoul District Court Decision 14,095,95,948 won jointly and severally, and the Defendants were jointly and severally paid 14,09,95,948 won and its amount from April 17, 1995 to April 28, 1995 to 10, 2000 won per annum 18,40% per annum from the next day to April 29, 200, 209 per annum 30,50% per annum.

B. Since then, the claim based on the above final judgment of the Japan Bank was transferred in succession to the Korea Asset Management Corporation and the Korea Asset Management Corporation, and the Korea Asset Management Corporation filed a lawsuit for the claim for transfer money against the Defendants, etc. under the Seoul Central District Court 2010Gahap31063 in order to suspend the extinctive prescription of the above claim and was sentenced to the same judgment as the above final judgment on October 22, 2010. The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. On August 28, 2012, the Plaintiff received the notification of the transfer of claims from the Korea Asset Management Corporation upon the transfer of the above claims against the Defendants. On October 19, 2012, the Plaintiff sent the notification of the transfer of claims to the Defendants respectively. However, each of the above notification of the transfer of claims did not reach the Defendants on the grounds that the absence of closure or the absence of directors is unknown.

On October 23, 2014, the duplicate of the complaint of this case, including the purport of the notification of the transfer of claims by the Plaintiff, reached the Defendants respectively.

E. Therefore, it is applicable.