1. The Defendant’s KRW 250,139,300 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from September 28, 2017 to November 28, 2017, and the following.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 25, 2017, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order against the Overseas Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “EM”) (Seoul East Eastern District Court 2017TTTTTTB 57723; hereinafter “instant collection order”), and the claim amounting to 250,139,300 won, such as the claim to return the lease deposit, etc., the obligor, the third obligor, and the third obligor, the claim amount to the Defendant, and the third obligor, the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2016Na20122, against the Defendant. The instant collection order was served on the Defendant on September 27, 2017.

B. On January 14, 2016, in the instant lawsuit against the Defendant’s claim for the rent of this case filed against the Defendant, the lower court sentenced that “the Defendant would pay to the Defendant for the Defendant-based development the amount of KRW 1,284,890,284 and KRW 1,122,00,000 per annum 12% per annum from March 8, 2014 to January 14, 2016, and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

(Seoul Eastern District Court 2014Gahap101253). (c)

The defendant appealed against the above judgment (Seoul High Court Decision 2016Na2010122), and the appellate court on April 28, 2017 confirmed that the creditors of the o-development were not qualified to be the parties to the o-development, and the defendant issued a ruling of recommending reconciliation (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of recommending reconciliation in this case") to the effect that the remaining claims except for the seized portions are paid 214,804,594 won and delay damages for 136,292,740 won to the o-development (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of recommending reconciliation in this case"), and the above decision was finalized on May 16, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. Prior to the gist of the defense in this case, other collection creditors B and C filed a collection suit with the Seoul East District Court.

Where creditors compete with each other, any creditor shall be prior to any other.