1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the basic facts:

On June 22, 2012, based on the original copy of the payment order for unjust enrichment case, the Plaintiff received on June 22, 2012 the attachment and collection order ( Jeju District Court Decision 2012j1670, the Plaintiff received the attachment and collection order (No. 2012TBT 2994) against the sales agency fee for the construction of the Defendant in Ireland, the obligor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Construction”), the third obligor Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Construction”), and the third obligor Construction Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Construction”), the amount of claims KRW 39,15,616. The above attachment and collection order was served on the Defendant Construction on June 27, 201

B. In addition, on August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (the Jeju District Court 2012TTT 3752) regarding the sales agency fee claim against the Defendant of Dencco in Denc, the garnishee, the garnishee, the Defendant Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Encco”), the claimed amount of KRW 40,134,246, based on the original copy of the above payment order. The Plaintiff received the seizure and collection order (the Jeju District Court 2012T 3752) on August 6, 2012. The above seizure and collection order was served on Dencco.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Enmark Co.

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount of 39,155,616 won collected and the amount of 39,155,616 won of fees owed by the plaintiff against Eulland, based on the original copy of the above payment order, the plaintiff received the seizure and collection order against the defendant Enco, and since the above seizure and collection order was served on the defendant Enco, the defendant Enco is liable to pay the plaintiff the amount collected and the delay damages.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 14 as well as the video, it is suggested that Defendant Enmark’s employees B pay KRW 40,134,246 to the Plaintiff on March 12, 2013, on condition that the Plaintiff deleted Internet news articles related to the instant apartment.