1. The Defendant rendered a ruling of provisional seizure of corporeal movables (No. 2013Kadan50562) against the District Court of the Republic of Korea against the Defendant Company A.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 13, 2012, the Defendant (formerly: Hoin Construction Co., Ltd.) subcontracted a temporary steel reinforced concrete construction project (hereinafter “instant construction project”) for one section (201 - 209 dong), among the “construction of multi-sea A2 block apartment buildings” from Daewoo Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Treatment Construction”).

B. On April 5, 2012, the Defendant leased from A (hereinafter referred to as “A”) the articles listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter referred to as “instant materials”) for the instant construction work as “The lease period: from June 1, 2012 to March 30, 2013; the rent: KRW 1.298 million.”

(hereinafter referred to as “instant lease agreement”). C.

On March 29, 2013, the Defendant delayed the supply of the instant materials, asserted that there was a defect in the instant materials, and filed a lawsuit claiming damages, etc. against A.

From the first instance court (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap24790) to October 31, 2013, “A shall pay 48,020,580 won and damages for delay to the defendant.” From the appellate court (Seoul High Court 2013Na7537) to the part against the defendant of the first instance judgment on April 30, 2015, and A shall pay 12,526,000 won and damages for delay to the defendant.

"Judgment" was pronounced to the effect that the judgment became final and conclusive on May 22, 2015.

The Defendant filed an application for provisional seizure of corporeal movables with the Goyang-gu District Court 2013Kadan50562 with A as the debtor, and the provisional seizure was rendered on September 2, 2013, and around that time, the Defendant issued a provisional seizure order and executed provisional seizure on the instant materials.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 5, 7, 12 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that since the materials of this case are owned by the plaintiff, the execution of provisional seizure against the materials of this case by the defendant should not be allowed due to compulsory execution against A, while the materials of this case are owned by the defendant.