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

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim attachment and collection order against C as to “The amount claimed based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the Seoul Central District Court case 2012Da5065921, which is KRW 127,11,880 on the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment in the contract deposit case, and 1/2 of the balance obtained by subtracting the tax and public charges from the salary paid each month (including the principal salary, bonuses and various allowances) and the end-of-day allowance (in June and December of each year), which is received in June and December of each year, until it reaches the above claim amount (if the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act is equivalent to the amount prescribed by the National Basic Living Security Act in consideration of the minimum cost of living under the National Basic Living Security Act, the amount excluding it, and the amount equivalent to the amount prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act in consideration of the amount

B. On December 5, 2013, the foregoing court issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the instant claim (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”), and the instant claim seizure and collection order were served to the Defendant on December 11, 2013, and became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. In regard to the Plaintiff’s assertion and determination, based on the instant claim attachment and collection order, seeking the payment of C’s monthly benefit, the Defendant asserted that C’s claim for the collection payment is unjust, since C’s monthly benefit does not exceed 1.5 million won under the Civil Execution Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.

In a lawsuit for collection, the existence of claims to be collected has the burden of proof to the plaintiff as a requisite fact.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the seizure and collection obligation under the seizure and collection order of this case does not constitute the claim subject to prohibition of seizure of KRW 1.5 million per month under Article 246 subparag. 4 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act. There is no other evidence

The plaintiff is the defendant's salary C.