2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. On June 1, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an order to pay the amount of reimbursement with three persons, including Seogjin-si District Court 2015Hu425, Seogjin-si, Daejeon District Court 2015, the obligor filed an order to pay the amount of reimbursement with the obligor. On June 1, 2015, the obligor was jointly and severally ordered to pay to the obligee KRW 30,243,634, and the said payment order became final and conclusive.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the claim against the Defendant regarding the wage claim (excluding the claim prohibited from seizure) to be paid monthly from the Defendant (excluding the claim prohibited from seizure). On November 21, 2017, the said court rendered a decision of acceptance on the claim stated in the separate sheet as of November 21, 2017.

C. On December 11, 2017, the order of seizure and collection of the instant claim was served on the Defendant. [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence (including the provisional number, and the purport of the whole pleadings)

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant is obligated to pay the benefits to B at the hospital operated by the Defendant as the medical care center, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay 30,526,534 won and delay damages to the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, based on the instant claim seizure and collection order. 2) The Defendant alleged that the Defendant would pay 20% of the profits at the time of employment of B as benefits. Since 2017, the Defendant agreed that the enemy of C hospital operated by the Defendant would pay 20% of the profits to B, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim for collection.

B. Determination 1) The existence of the seized claim in a lawsuit for collection based on the relevant legal doctrine and the collection order is proved by the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). As such, the existence and scope of the wage claim against the Defendant B, a collection claim in this case, is the Plaintiff.