1. The Plaintiff and the Defendants: (a) On October 30, 2018, the Daegu District Court Kimcheon- Branch of the Daegu District Court (Seoul District Court) No. 977, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 3, 2018, Defendant B transferred “the full amount of Defendant B’s claim for processing costs against the Plaintiff Company E (hereinafter “E”) for August 2018, and the notice of the fixed date of the assignment of claims reached E on September 27, 2018.

On October 3, 2018, Defendant B transferred “the full amount of Defendant B’s claim for processing expenses for September and October 2018 against Defendant B” to the Plaintiff, and the notification with the fixed date of the assignment of claims reached E on October 5, 2018.

B. The remainder of the processing costs for the portion paid by E to Defendant B, the amount for August, September, and October, 2018, shall be 54,085,745 won in total.

C. Defendant B transferred to Defendant C “The claim of KRW 70 million for Defendant B’s E,” and the assignment of the claim was notified on October 10, 2018.

Defendant B transferred “Defendant B’s claim of KRW 100 million to Defendant B” and notified the assignment of the claim to E on October 19, 2018.

Defendant D, a creditor of Defendant B, received the decision on provisional seizure of claims as of October 17, 2018, the Daegu District Court Decision 2018Kadan1121 with respect to “the claim claim against Defendant B in KRW 81,91,267 against Defendant B”, and the decision reached E on October 19, 2018.

E. On October 11, 2018, the old U.S. Tax Office attached “a claim equivalent to the amount of delinquent taxes among the sales claims Defendant B acquired against E”, and the notification of seizure reached E on October 17, 2018.

F. On October 30, 2018, “E” under Article 977 of the Daegu District Court Kimcheon Branch of the Daegu District Court in 2018, on the ground that “A dispute over the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B exists, and the amount of the assignment of claims is not specified, and thus, it is impossible to know whether the assignment of claims was prior to the assignment of claims, and as such, the notification of provisional attachment and seizure was served,” and under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, Articles 248(1) and 291 of the Civil Execution Act, the term “the instant claim” refers to the claim of this case, which is 54,085,745 won (hereinafter referred to as the “instant claim”).