1. On March 7, 2019, the defendant's claim for the purchase price of goods against the plaintiff was filed by the Suwon District Court 2019Gais20297.

1. Examining the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, 2, and 3, the Defendant: (a) on November 17, 2016, sold capital reduction equipment (hereinafter “the instant machinery”) to C with the contract price of KRW 20 million; and (b) upon C’s failure to pay KRW 11 million out of the above contract price, filed a lawsuit against C for claiming the price of goods with the Suwon District Court Decision 2017Gau12453, U.S. Court 2017; and (c) on June 5, 2017, the said court rendered a decision to the effect that “C shall pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant and delay damages; and (d) thereafter, the Defendant asserted that it was impossible for C to pay the price of the instant machinery to the Plaintiff and the Defendant for the payment of KRW 301,000,000,000,000,000,000).

2. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that since the plaintiff was not obligated to pay to the plaintiff the balance of the contract price of the machinery of this case as the contract price of this case was not transferred by C, the decision of performance recommendation of this case is unfair and it shall not be allowed to enforce compulsory execution based thereon.

As to this, the defendant disposes of the freezing warehouse owned by C at will, D, which was operated by C, is operated in the name of the plaintiff, the plaintiff uses C's place of business as its principal office, C is registered as the plaintiff's internal director, and the plaintiff occupies and uses the machinery sold by C by the defendant to C.