1. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 201 Gohap 39637 decided on the gold acquisition case between C and the Defendant.

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the following facts can be acknowledged.

A. C Co., Ltd. (C, July 23, 2012, D, and March 14, 2013, changed their respective trade names to E.

On April 22, 2011, the Seoul Central District Court filed a lawsuit seeking acquisition money against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 201 Gohap 39637).

B. On September 1, 2011, C received a judgment (hereinafter “instant judgment”) from the said court that “F and C shall pay 24% interest per annum from January 7, 2011 to KRW 438,648,863 and from KRW 112,329,340 to KRW 112,340.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on September 23, 2011.

(c)

C On December 28, 2012, G (hereinafter “G”) transferred the instant claim against the Defendant to G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”) based on the instant judgment, and delegated the notification right to transfer to the assignee, and G delegated the notification right to the Plaintiff on January 5, 2015 by re-transfering the said claim to the Plaintiff.

(d)

On January 9, 2020, the Plaintiff, who was delegated with the authority to notify the transfer of each of the above claims by G, sent the notice of transfer of each of the above claims to the Defendant, but failed to reach the notice, and the duplicate of the complaint of this case attached with the notice of transfer of each of the above claims was served to the Defendant on May 27, 2020.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Seoul Central District Court official, etc. is obligated to grant the execution clause to the Plaintiff, who is the successor to the claim based on the instant judgment, for compulsory execution against the Defendant.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On August 24, 2018, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the grant of the execution clause of this case was unfair, since the Defendant rendered a decision to grant immunity on bankruptcy (Seoul bankruptcy Court Decision 2017No. 4177 at the end of 2017, 2017) against the Defendant.

(b)an action for granting an execution clause provided for in article 33 of the Civil Execution Act shall be instituted by the obligee for the purpose of obtaining the execution clause.