1. The provisional seizure of the Seoul Central District Court 2015TTT 2332, which is the plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant) as the third debtor, is the provisional seizure.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On August 30, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) the price for the instant officetel 102 Dong 3701 (hereinafter “instant officetel”) located in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant officetel”); (b) the construction period is KRW 220 million; and (c) the construction period is the same year for the instant officetel 3701 located in Busan Shipping Daegu (hereinafter “instant officetel”).

9.1. From January 3 to November 30 of the same year, the Rotterdam construction contract was concluded.

(hereinafter “instant construction project”). B.

A defendant delivered kitchen furniture, etc. to the non-party company, but the non-party company did not pay the price, around February 2012, attached a claim for the construction cost due to the construction work of the non-party company against the plaintiff (hereinafter "provisional attachment of this case"), and around February 9, 2015, the non-party company was the debtor, and the plaintiff was the third debtor, and was issued a provisional attachment and collection order to transfer the claim amount of KRW 85,161,597 to the provisional attachment of KRW 2015,232 of the same court.

(hereinafter “instant collection order”) 2. Determination

A. The gist of the claim is that the plaintiff paid KRW 180 million to the non-party company as the price for the construction of this case. The non-party company did not have the construction cost exceeding the above price received as a result of delay without unilaterally performing the construction agreed upon, and as a result, the plaintiff asserted that there is no debt for collection against the defendant.

In regard to this, the defendant argued that the non-party company's completion of the construction of this case and the received construction cost does not reach KRW 180 million, and then the non-party company sought the payment of the above collection amount against the plaintiff upon a counterclaim.

(b) evidence Nos. 6 to 19, 32, 33 and 34, as to the amount of construction price paid by the Plaintiff to determine whether the obligation to pay the collected amount exists, including health units and respective numbers, B.