1. The part of the claim for restitution in the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below.

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) subcontracted the C Reinforcement in the amount of KRW 147,400,000 to the Commissioner of the Gyeongbuk Provincial Police Agency who was contracted by B (hereinafter “B”) on December 2, 2008; (b) completed the construction work on June 5, 2009; (c) but did not receive the construction payment from B

B. Accordingly, on November 6, 2009, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order with respect to the claim for the construction cost of KRW 147,400,000 as the claim amounting to KRW 100,000,000,000,000 from the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court (2009Kadan6555, Nov. 6, 2009) (the original copy of the above decision was served on Tae Masan Development Corporation, the garnishee debtor on Nov. 9, 2009), and filed a lawsuit against B on Dec. 9, 2010, the appellate court affirmed that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 144,44,00,00 and its amount shall be 5% per annum from the next day to December 9, 2010, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (Seoul High Court Decision 201 or 2056, respectively).”

(hereinafter “final judgment of this case”). C.

On May 17, 2011, the Plaintiff received a decision to seize and collect the claim to transfer the provisional seizure of KRW 167,238,467 as the claim amounting to KRW 201,5204 from the Seoggu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court as the title of execution. The original copy of the decision was served on Taecheon Tourism Development Corporation, a garnishee on May 18, 201.

Meanwhile, from August 24, 2010, the Defendant was issued with one promissory note as of October 31, 2010, which entered as of August 31, 2010 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”) from the issuer B, the payee B, the Defendant, the face value of KRW 150,000,000, and the date of payment on October 31, 2010, and the date of issuance on August 24, 2010 (hereinafter “instant promissory note”), and was issued and delivered by a notary public on the basis of a notarial deed stating the purport of recognizing compulsory execution under No. 393 of 201, Nov. 12, 2010 (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).