1. The Defendant’s compulsory execution against the Plaintiff is based on the payment order issued by Suwon District Court 2017 tea143.

1. On June 28, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order of KRW 134,488,955 for the payment of the construction cost under the contract entered into as of May 10, 2015 (U.S. District Court 2017 tea143). On July 11, 2017, the said court ordered the Defendant to pay the amount of KRW 134,48,955 to the Defendant and the amount of KRW 10% per annum from March 1, 2016 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and the payment order was finalized on July 29, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant payment order”). The Defendant filed an application with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2017TT, 14365, 2017TT, and 21072 for a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s third debtor C, etc. regarding the Plaintiff’s claim against the third debtor C, etc. with the title of execution of the instant payment order, and received the said court’s decision of acceptance on August 17, 2017 and December 6, 2017.

On January 17, 2019, the Plaintiff filed for rehabilitation with Suwon District Court 2019dan103, which is continuing the instant lawsuit, and received the decision to commence rehabilitation proceedings on April 16, 2019, and the decision to commence rehabilitation plans on January 30, 2020.

However, the list of rehabilitation creditors who submitted the above rehabilitation procedure by the Plaintiff did not enter the claim based on the payment order of this case, and did not report the rehabilitation claim as the rehabilitation claim within the period of reporting.

On February 19, 2020, the rehabilitation court rendered a decision to terminate the rehabilitation procedure against the plaintiff on the ground that "the plaintiff began repayment according to the rehabilitation plan, and it is not deemed that there is any obstacle to the implementation of the rehabilitation plan."

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap evidence 38, Gap evidence 39-1, Eul evidence 11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant contracted the construction of reinforced concrete to the Defendant for the cost of KRW 538,424,575, among the extension works of the E company located in the wife population D, and the price is that.