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

A. On November 4, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim (hereinafter “instant seizure collection order”) under the Incheon District Court Decision 2014Da58749, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the loan case, as to the Defendant A’s wage claim and retirement allowance claim against the debtor, as the Incheon District Court Decision 2014Da58749, Nov. 4, 2014.

B. On November 8, 2014, the collection order of the instant case was finalized after it was served on the Defendant.

C. On December 12, 2014, the Defendant remitted KRW 1,097,00, equivalent to 1/2 of the monthly salary of November 2014, to the Plaintiff.

A retired from the Defendant Company on November 27, 2014.

On the other hand, A, after joining the Defendant company on December 10, 2001, received 25,463,260 won in total (hereinafter “DC-type retirement pension”) on four occasions as interim settlement payments of retirement allowances, and received 3,032,60 won in July 31, 2009, and 203,032,60 won in total, July 31, 201, and 31, December 31, 2010. From November 1, 2011, A, as defined in Article 20 of the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 1 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant should pay A's wages and retirement allowances according to A's collection order of seizure in this case. The defendant asserts that A has already retired, and that the retirement pension claim is prohibited from seizure, and that there is no reason to respond to the plaintiff's claim.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, since A retired on November 27, 2014, it is apparent that there is no wage claim other than the monthly wage of A paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, and on the other hand, a seizure order against the right to receive benefits under a retirement pension plan is null and void, and the third obligor may refuse payment on the ground that the claim for collection of the seized claim is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da71180, Jan. 23, 2014).