1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff based on the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2016Gaso6409 recommendations.

1. The defendant's assertion that the defendant knew the plaintiff as the user of C and supplied C with the goods equivalent to KRW 9,392,50,00, such as other days, upon C's request, the plaintiff as the employer of C, is obligated to pay the above goods to the defendant.

As to this, the plaintiff asserts that there is no obligation to pay the price of the above goods to the defendant because the plaintiff is not the user of C, but the defendant does not enter into a contract for goods supply with the defendant, so compulsory execution based on the decision of performance recommendation by the Seoul Northern District Court 2016Gaso6409 as stated in Paragraph 1

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the evidence Nos. 1 and 1 evidence Nos. 1 and 1, the Defendant concluded a contract for goods supply with C from May 2009 to April 11, 2014, which was not paid the price of the above goods. The Defendant, knowing the Plaintiff as the employer, filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff with the Seoul Northern District Court 2016Gao6409, Seoul Northern District Court 2016, and sought payment of the price of goods KRW 9,392,500, and delay damages therefor. The above court decided to recommend performance on March 8, 2016. The decision becomes final and conclusive. The Defendant’s payment of KRW 300,000,000 from C, and KRW 2,000,000,000 following the date it received from C, and according to the compulsory execution agreement between C and the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s payment of the above goods is not allowed.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.