1. Of the distribution schedule prepared on May 19, 2017 by the above court with respect to the case B in Seoul Central District Court, the defendant is against the defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff’s bond, etc. 1) The Plaintiff’s net construction company (hereinafter “the Plaintiff’s net construction company”) omitted all the indication of the Plaintiff.

) A lawsuit against the Plaintiff was filed (Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap3349). The court rendered a judgment of winning part of the Plaintiff that: (a) “The construction of Macyoung General shall be 300,000,000 won to the Plaintiff; (b) 5% per annum from April 19, 2008 to December 24, 2008; and (c) 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment was finalized around that time (hereinafter referred to as the “final judgment of this case”).

2) The Plaintiff received the order of seizure and collection, etc. as indicated below from the court by designating the final and conclusive judgment of this case as executive title.

On July 10, 2014, the third debtor and the delivery date of 1 Seoul Central District Court 2014TTTT 2014TT 19246 on July 10, 2014, the motion picture apartment reconstruction association (on July 15, 2014) 2 Seoul Central District Court 2016TT 10358 claims seizure and collection order on February 23, 2016 (on February 26, 2016), D companies (on February 29, 2016), E companies ( February 25, 2016).

B. 1) The Defendant applied for payment order, etc. against the net construction division of Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”) and the Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

2) As to new construction works, the Defendant entered into a contract for construction works with the content that the net construction would subcontract part of the said construction works (hereinafter “instant contract”).

(2) The Defendant filed an application for a payment order against net construction to seek payment on the ground that the Defendant was not paid the amount of the construction payment under the instant contract (Seoul Central District Court Decision 201Da32668). On April 29, 2011, the court shall pay the Defendant the amount of KRW 1,640,000 and the amount of KRW 1,640,000 from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the Defendant.