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

A. On November 2, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on the loan claim with Seoul Central District Court 201Da179798, and was sentenced to the judgment that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 85,980,000 won with interest rate of 20% per annum from April 15, 2011 to the date of full payment.” On June 27, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit on the loan claim with the above court 2013Da122567, the Defendant was sentenced to the judgment that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 28,000,000 won with interest rate of 20% per annum from June 7, 2013 to the date of full payment,” and the above court was sentenced to the judgment that “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 20% interest per annum 30,000 won per annum from June 7, 2013 to the date of full payment.”

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order of KRW 187,624,281, among the loan claims against C against the Defendant, with the Seoul Central District Court 2014TTTT28741, and the said court issued the seizure and collection order of the claim on October 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”).

On May 15, 2015, the collection order was served on the Defendant.

【Reasons for Recognition】 Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff asserts that C has a loan claim against the Defendant, and that the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order of the instant loan claim, so the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount to be collected and the delay damages to the Plaintiff, who is the third obligor of the above order, as the collection right holder.

B. In a collection lawsuit based on the collection order, the existence of the seized claim must be proved by the Plaintiff, the creditor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40476, Jun. 11, 2015). A’s statement of evidence No. 6 alone is the seizure and seizure of the instant claim.