1. The instant lawsuit is an order for payment issued on June 15, 2018 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Hu129163.

1. The following facts of recognition are apparent to be recorded:

The Plaintiff filed a payment order against the Defendant and D with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2018Guj1129163, Jun. 15, 2018 (hereinafter “instant payment order”). On June 15, 2018, the said court issued a payment order stating that “The Defendant and D jointly and severally paid to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 1.6 billion won per annum from the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of full payment” (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

B. On June 21, 2018, the original copy of the instant payment order was served on the Defendant’s domicile on the Defendant’s corporate registry and received the Defendant’s office E, but the Defendant did not raise an objection against the instant payment order until the elapse of 14 days from that date.

(D) On June 19, 2018, the Plaintiff served the original copy of the instant payment order and filed an objection on the 28th of the same month, but the Plaintiff withdrawn the instant lawsuit against D on October 1, 2018.

On July 5, 2018, the Intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the “ Intervenor”) filed an application for intervention in the instant payment order on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Intervenor, and filed an objection against the instant payment order on the same day.

[Around April 13, 2017, the Intervenor filed an application with the Defendant and D for a payment order claiming the return of KRW 1 billion investment amount, which was subsequently implemented as litigation procedures of Seoul Central District Court 2017Gahap5818 and 2018Gahap503281 (combined)].

On September 2, 2018, the Defendant filed an objection subsequent to the instant payment order.

E. On December 31, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an objection to the purport that the instant application for intervention was unlawful through a preparatory document.

2. Determination

A. Determination as to the Intervenor’s motion for intervention and the legitimacy of the Intervenor’s motion for intervention 1) A, in the instant payment order case, D is in the position of jointly and severally liable with the Defendant, and as such, D applied for intervention on behalf of the Defendant.