1. The Defendant’s KRW 34,232,901 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 15% per annum from January 19, 2019 to May 31, 2019.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C Limited Partnership Company (hereinafter “instant limited Partnership Company”) seeking confirmation of dismissal 2016Kahap310, Youngcheon District Court’s Young-gu Branch Branch of the Chuncheon District Court. On February 23, 2018, the said court rendered a judgment that “The instant limited Partnership Company shall pay KRW 34,201,901 to the Plaintiff.”

In the case of Seoul High Court (Chuncheon) 2018Na492, the appellate court sentenced the dismissal of appeal on October 17, 2018, and the Supreme Court also sentenced the dismissal of appeal on January 17, 2019 in the case of Supreme Court No. 2018Da285601, which is the final appeal.

B. Meanwhile, the instant limited partnership company filed a lawsuit against the Defendant on the claim for investment, etc. against the Defendant as the Youngcheon District Court’s Young-gu Branch 2016Gahap10533, and the said court rendered a judgment on February 23, 2018 that “the Defendant, who is a partner with limited liability of the instant limited partnership, has paid KRW 75 million to the instant limited partnership company and damages for delay from September 28, 2016,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

C. On June 4, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the amount of claim KRW 34,232,901 with respect to the amount of claim against the invested claim that the instant limited partnership company held against the Defendant by Youngcheon District Court (Yancheon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office of 34,232,901. On June 5, 2018, the Plaintiff received the decision of acceptance, and served the decision on July

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant is not the defendant's representative, but the defendant's representative is not the defendant's external representative because D was appointed as the defendant's representative, but it was not the defendant's representative. Since E, the representative director at the time of the registration of dissolution deemed as the defendant's representative liquidator on December 6, 2019, is the defendant's representative liquidator, the lawsuit of this case against D as

(b) Where a company is dissolved, other provisions in the articles of incorporation, except for cases of merger or bankruptcy.