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

A. The Plaintiff is an insurer who has concluded an automobile insurance contract with respect to C Vehicle (hereinafter “AV”).

B. On November 1, 2019, at around 04:30, the Defendant driven a D vehicle (hereinafter “victim”) and driven a two-lane between four-lanes in the vicinity of the Daegu Water Station, and followed up a stone from the sea-going vehicle.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant accident”). C.

The Defendant filed a payment order with the Plaintiff seeking payment of 664,60 won for the repair cost of the damaged vehicle due to the instant accident, and damages for delay thereof, and received payment order on December 12, 2019.

(F) On December 18, 2019, the Plaintiff was served with the instant payment order and the said order became final and conclusive on the following grounds: (a) on December 18, 2019, the Plaintiff was not dissatisfied with the instant payment order.

On February 10, 2020, the Defendant issued a collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2020 TaT978, hereinafter “instant collection order”) on February 10, 202 by requesting the seizure and collection order of KRW 914,217 against the claim amounting to KRW 889,240 among the Plaintiff’s deposit claims against E (hereinafter “foreign bank”) based on the instant payment order.

E. On February 19, 2020, the collection order of this case was served on the non-party bank, which is the garnishee, and on February 24, 2020, the defendant claimed the collection money from the non-party bank, and on February 24, 2020, collected KRW 676,440 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 664,640 (i., the interest calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from December 19, 2019 to February 10, 2020), and KRW 212,800 (i.e., the expenses for demanding the payment order, KRW 57,400, the expenses for executing the execution of the collection order), plus KRW 889,240 (i.e., 15,400).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant 119 first-aid vehicles, which followed the plaintiff, sound a horn and change the lanes into three-lanes.