1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Na14494 Decided December 23, 2015.

1. The facts of recognition (i) around December 9, 1985, C prepared and delivered a written statement to pay 25% of the selling price to E and the Defendant when disposing of “Seoul Jung-gu D & 17.9m2 (hereinafter “the instant land”). The Defendant acquired E’s right on November 17, 1996 and possessed all the above rights to C.

B. On October 19, 2011, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against C with the Seoul Southern District Court 201Gadan81354 (hereinafter “C”) on the basis of the foregoing written statement, and on March 22, 2013, the Defendant (hereinafter “Defendant”) received a partial winning judgment, i.e., payment of the amount of KRW 35,396,355 (hereinafter “C”) to the Plaintiff, 5% per annum from March 8, 2013 to March 22, 2013; and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

Accordingly, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment that: (a) as to KRW 44,625,00 among the Plaintiff and KRW 35,396,355 among them, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 44,625,00 and KRW 35,355 from March 9, 2013 to March 22, 2013; (b) KRW 9,228,645 each year from March 9, 2013 to October 24, 2013; and (c) as to KRW 5% each year from the next day to October 24, 2013 to the date of full payment, the amount calculated at 20% each year from the next day to the date of full payment.

On August 26, 2014, both the Defendant and C appealed, but the dismissal of the appeal was finalized by Supreme Court Decision 2013Da93906 Decided August 26, 2014.

On February 21, 2012, the Plaintiff and the instant land were promised to sell and purchase the land, and accordingly, the Seoul Central District Court of China issued a registration of ownership transfer claim to the Plaintiff as the receipt No. 8855 on February 22, 2012. On March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a sales contract with the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt No. 19866 on April 25, 2013 of the same registry office.

Applicant The Defendant concluded a pre-sale and sales contract with the Plaintiff for the purpose of undermining the Defendant, the obligee, despite the existence of the obligation under the above judgment, and revoked the fraudulent act against the Plaintiff on February 13, 2015.