1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. All the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. The facts below the basis of facts do not conflict between the Parties.

On November 22, 2012, the first instance court (U.S. District Court Decision 201Gahap972) revoked a sales contract for the goods entered into on July 4, 2013 between the Plaintiff and F and the Plaintiff that partly accepted the conjunctive claim (Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na2629) and the first instance court (Seoul High Court Decision 201Na2629) upon the pronouncement of the sentence, and concluded on February 17, 2010; and the Plaintiff pays to the Ma 353,650,000 won and the annual interest rate of 5% from the day following the day the judgment became final to day of full payment.

Supreme Court Decision 2013Da66485 Decided January 29, 2014 (hereinafter “Supreme Court Decision 2013Da66485”) reversed on the ground that: (a) there is doubt as to whether the period for exercising the creditor’s right of revocation against the Plaintiff’s losing part of the conjunctive claim is complied with; and (b) it is unlawful for the appellate court to revoke the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment on June 20, 2014 (Seoul High Court 2014Na10504); and (c) to dismiss the same on the ground that the revocation of the conjunctive claim in the first instance judgment on June 20, 2014; and (d) a lawsuit filed after the expiration of the period for exercising the creditor’s right of revocation. After the remand, the appellate court (Supreme Court 2014Na

A. On January 14, 201, the network E filed a claim against the Plaintiff for damages, which was primarily caused by a tort, as well as a preliminary obligee’s revocation lawsuit, and the following judgment was rendered:

B. Meanwhile, on the grounds of the above judgment on July 10, 2013, following the judgment of the appellate court, the network E applied for provisional seizure of the Plaintiff’s claim against 17 business partners (the claimed amount of KRW 353,650,000). Accordingly, the Seoul High Court decided provisional seizure of the claim.

(Seoul High Court 2013Kahap1024, hereinafter referred to as the "decision of provisional seizure of this case").

On January 29, 2014, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment of reversal and return, and on February 5, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for revocation of the decision of provisional seizure of this case.

The Seoul High Court (Seoul High Court, April 4, 2014 and May 2, 2014), after the second examination date, returned to the appellate court.