1. On September 27, 2016, the Suwon District Court rendered a decision of performance recommendation (No. 2016 Ghana40471) against the Defendant’s Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 4, 2016, the Defendant was issued a decision to seize and collect the claim against the Plaintiff for the household supply price of the same Mine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dong Mine Co., Ltd”) under the control of Suwon District Court Decision 2016TTT 7833.

B. On July 13, 2016, the Plaintiff was served with the above decision and submitted the third obligor’s statement to the effect that the above attached claim is not recognized on July 19, 2016.

C. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the amount of debt collection that was filed by the Defendant under the said Support No. 2016 Ghana40471, Sept. 27, 2016 (hereinafter “instant performance recommendation decision”) and the decision on performance recommendation was made on Sept. 27, 2016, and the Plaintiff did not submit a written objection within the objection period. As such, the instant performance recommendation decision became final and conclusive as is,

On April 4, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the instant decision on performance recommendation, the Defendant was determined to seize and collect the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against the Bank, etc. as the Plaintiff’s order of seizure and collection.

【Based on Recognition 【A’s Evidence Nos. 1 and 2(including paper numbers)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is that the plaintiff was traded with the Jeju-do Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "the Jeju-do Co., Ltd.") and there was no transaction relation with the Jeju-do Co., Ltd., and that there was only failed to respond to the traffic accident at the time of receipt of the decision of performance recommendation of this case, and that the defendant agreed to pay the price for the supply of the household to the Dong-do Co., Ltd.

B. In light of the following facts, the witness B’s testimony, which corresponds to the argument that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the price for the supply to the household of the Dongdongdongdong-based, is difficult to believe it as is, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the respective entries and arguments in the evidence Nos. 3-8 (including household numbers) and the whole purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff is a stock company