1. On March 11, 2013 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, the Seoul Central District Court.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) was awarded a contract with Nonparty Company for advertising agency and publicity services (hereinafter “instant services”) by Nonparty Company, and did not receive KRW 47,278,440 from Nonparty Company until March 2013.

B. Upon the request of the Defendant Company, Defendant B, who has a national tax claim against the Defendant Company, recommended a model suitable for advertisement or protocol, and managed and supervised the model with the trade name of “C”, has the Does managed by Defendant B from June 2010 to September 2012, as requested by the Defendant Company, had the Does managed by Defendant B distribute Non-Party Company’s samples at a food sales business establishment in the city and investigate whether products are displayed, etc., but did not receive service charges from the Defendant Company.

C. On January 3, 2013, in order to collect the delinquent tax amount of KRW 56,971,980 from the Defendant Company’s non-party company, based on Article 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act, the Plaintiff seized the amount of the delinquent tax among the claims against the non-party company’s non-party company until it was due and notified of seizure, and the notification reached the non-party company on January 9, 2013.

On the other hand, Defendant B also notified the non-party company, the owner of the instant service, to claim a direct payment of KRW 67,465,789, which was not paid by the Defendant company, pursuant to the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act (hereinafter “subcontract Act”), asserting that the Defendant Company, the principal contractor, was the subcontractor of the instant service, and that the Defendant Company, the principal contractor, was in the status of suspending payment, and such notification was reached January 9, 2013.

Accordingly, on March 11, 2013, the non-party company was designated as the Defendant Company, Defendant B, and Plaintiff as the Seoul Central District Court No. 5128 of 2013, and the fact that the direct claim of Defendant B and the notification of the Plaintiff’s seizure of claims cannot be confirmed due to the receipt of the notification.