1. The Defendant’s KRW 658,857,204 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from October 30, 2018 to November 26, 2018.

1. The description of the grounds for the claim shall be as specified in the attached Form;

2. Articles 208(3)1 and 257 of the Civil Procedure Act: A judgment without holding any pleadings;

3. The plaintiff partially dismissed shall claim damages for delay from the day after the defendant was served with a collection order.

However, a collection order is limited to granting the creditor the right to collect the claim against the creditor to the creditor to the third debtor, and it does not require the third debtor to pay the creditor the amount equivalent to the amount of the claim seized to the creditor, or setting the payment period. Therefore, it is not from the time when the third debtor receives the collection order from the execution court, but from the date after receiving the claim from the execution creditor for the collection money after the issuance of the collection order.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da47117, Oct. 25, 2012). Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant is deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 257(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim for delay compensation from October 23, 2018 to October 29, 2018 after the issuance of the collection order to the Defendant is issued is only recognized as the Plaintiff’s claim for collection money to the Defendant on October 29, 2018, and there is no assertion and proof as to the Plaintiff’s claim for collection money to the Defendant by October 28, 2018, which is the previous date. Thus, the part of the claim for delay compensation from October 24, 2018 to October 29, 2018 is dismissed as without merit