1. It is confirmed that the plaintiffs' obligation to pay the goods stated in the attached Form to the defendant does not exist.

2...

1. On August 7, 2013, the Defendant Company filed an application for commencement of rehabilitation with the Daegu District Court 2013 Gohap35, and received a decision to commence rehabilitation on September 5, 2013.

As of June 30, 2013, the Defendant Company is a major asset of the Company at the time of the above application, and its current assets are composed of KRW 1,780,000,000,000,000.

In doing so, a statement of accounts receivable (Evidence A No. 2-2) containing the content that the plaintiffs have a claim for the purchase price of goods equivalent to the amount stated in the attached Table as an explanatory material.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including virtual number) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiffs asserted the cause of the claim are formally registered as the employees of the defendant company, but they are merely purchasing the drugs of the defendant company from the independent seller U.S. and do not deal with the defendant company. Thus, there is no reason for the plaintiffs to bear the liability for the purchase price of goods equivalent to the amount stated in the attached Table against the defendant company, and as long as the plaintiffs have made a transaction with the defendant company through U, the plaintiffs paid the price of goods to U

B. (1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of a pecuniary obligation, if the plaintiff alleged to deny the fact of the occurrence of the obligation by specifying the first claim, the defendant shall be held liable to assert and prove the facts of the requirements for the legal relationship.

(2) In the instant case, the Plaintiffs asserted that there is no reason to assume the Defendant Company’s obligation to pay the price of goods equivalent to the amount indicated in the separate sheet on the ground that the Plaintiff traded with U.S., an independent seller who is not the Defendant Company, and thus, there is no reason to assume the obligation to pay the price of goods to the Defendant Company. Thus, the Defendant Company is the requirement to claim the price of goods against the Plaintiffs, namely, the requirement to pay the price of goods.