1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 15, 2004, the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional seizure of claims (No. 2004Kadan3963) against the Defendant on September 15, 2004 for the purpose of preserving the execution of the claim amounting to KRW 40 million against the Defendant (hereinafter “the Promissorysory Notes”). On March 20, 206, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the seizure and collection of claims (No. 2006 Sejong District Court KRW 2006Ma1844) by transferring the above provisional seizure to the original seizure.

B. In addition, on July 26, 2005, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking the payment of the Promissory Notes. On January 6, 2006, the lower court rendered a judgment that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million and the amount at the rate of KRW 20% per annum from October 15, 2005 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

C. The Defendant’s non-party debtor industrial development company deposited KRW 24,665,280 on the grounds that the creditors’ provisional attachment and seizure of the lease deposit against the Defendant were concurrent. The Plaintiff received dividend of KRW 11,897,237 in accordance with the first instance court’s judgment that became final and conclusive on February 8, 2006.

The Defendant’s debtor and the Republic of Korea deposited KRW 12,047,227 after receiving the above collection order, and the Plaintiff received dividends from the distribution procedure (U.S. District Court Sejong), which was conducted with respect to the above deposit money, based on the judgment below that became formally final and conclusive on April 26, 2006, KRW 12,038,347.

[Reasons for Recognition] The substantial facts in this Court, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the subsequent appeal of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is part of the dividend payment with the judgment of the first instance court in Suwon District Court Suwon District Court C and in each dividend procedure D of the same court D.