1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. From January 31, 2014 to February 27, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied C (C; hereinafter “C”) a master, etc., “D” necessary for the factory automation.

B. Although the Plaintiff supplied the goods as above to C, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking payment of the unpaid goods amounting to KRW 748,255,119 and damages for delay as the Daegu District Court 2015Kahap202166, and received a favorable judgment on June 12, 2015, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on July 2, 2015.

C. On February 16, 2015, the Defendant engaged in the manufacturing business of hardware, etc. entered into a contract with C for the supply and installation of a multi-unit robot system equipment for 300 tons presses (hereinafter “instant first contract”).

The main contents of the First Contract are as follows.

- Date of supply: Amount supplied on April 30, 2015 - KRW 315,00,000 (excluding value-added tax): Contract item E (items: 3PR-S-2-8/4-E-200) - Place of supply and delivery conditions: The place of supply in the designated factory of the defendant: The method of paying down payment (50%) on February 16, 2015: The intermediate payment (30%) on April 10, 2015 at the time of the receipt of equipment: The balance (20%) on May 10, 2015 at the time of the completion of the trial operation: Within ten days after the completion of the trial operation.

D. On February 23, 2015, the Defendant paid C the down payment of KRW 150,000,000 under the instant contract No. 1.

E. The Plaintiff: (a) filed an application for provisional attachment against the Defendant for KRW 60,00,00 among the equipment cost claims under the instant contract with the Daegu District Court 2015Kadan3035 as part of KRW 748,255,119; and (b) received a decision of accepting the Plaintiff’s application on March 19, 2015 (hereinafter “decision of provisional attachment”); and (c) the instant provisional attachment order was served on the Defendant on March 23, 2015.

The defendant has mistakenly specified the claim against the seizure of this case, and thus the provisional seizure becomes effective.