1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff asserted that part of the service was performed in accordance with the advisory and consignment service agreement with the Defendant regarding the housing reconstruction project of Taeung-ung apartment, which was concluded with the Defendant, and the Defendant lent money in the process.

At the time of March 11, 2009, the sum of the Plaintiff’s service payment claims and loan claims against the Defendant was KRW 2,428,032,041 (i.e., service charges of KRW 1,400,000,000, KRW 784,443,589,041). Of them, the Plaintiff transferred the claim of KRW 900,000,000 to a third party.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 1,528,032,041 (=2,428,032,041) - 900,000,000) and delay damages.

2. The defendant asserts that the lawsuit of this case by the plaintiff is unlawful since the defendant issued a seizure and collection order against the plaintiff's service charges and loan claims against the defendant.

If a seizure and collection order is issued for a claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

(2) In light of the purport of the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s obligee, and the Plaintiff’s obligee, as a whole, received a seizure and collection order (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013Da1587, May 28, 2015) on November 11, 2013, regarding “the amount until the Plaintiff reaches KRW 2,70,000,00, out of service charges and loans that the Plaintiff is required to receive from the Defendant,” and the Defendant received the above seizure and collection order (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2013Du20294, Nov. 14, 2013).

According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff lost the standing to file a lawsuit for performance of the above service costs and loan claims.

As such, the instant lawsuit seeking service costs and loans is unlawful.

As to this, the plaintiff's debt against S&D Co., Ltd. is the above seizure and collection order.