1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the price of goods with the Changwon District Court Decision 2014Da15164 against MK plant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “MK”).

On September 25, 2014, the above court rendered a judgment that “MK plant shall pay the Plaintiff 17,896,700 won with 20% interest per annum from September 7, 2014 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment became final and conclusive on October 21, 2014.

B. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order on the claim amounting to KRW 17,896,700 with the Changwon District Court 2014Kadan71 regarding the claim for the price of goods against the Defendant of the IM plant, and on February 28, 2014, the said decision was served on the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff transferred the amount of KRW 17,896,70 as the Changwon District Court No. 2015TT7696 to the original attachment, and received a collection order for the attachment and collection of the said amount of KRW 3,474,560, which additionally seizes KRW 3,474,560, and on October 23, 2015, the said order was served on the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of claim, barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff money based on the seizure and collection order within the scope of the defendant's obligation to pay the price for the goods of the IM plant to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the defendant's obligation for the price of the goods for the IM plant was extinguished by the deposit for execution due to the concurrent seizure and collection order between C and the plaintiff.

Comprehensively taking into account the following facts acknowledged by the entries in the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant’s obligation to pay for the goods for the IM plant conflicts with the Plaintiff and C, and as long as the Defendant made a deposit for execution on the grounds of the foregoing on June 7, 2016, the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff was extinguished. Therefore, the Defendant’s above assertion is tenable.