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

A. Based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of the Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan121694 on D’s wage, etc., the Plaintiff’s allegation was issued a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim attachment and collection order”) that transferred the provisional attachment to the provisional attachment under the Seoul Central District Court 2013 TataT34905 on November 4, 2013 on the service payment claim that D had against the Defendant. The instant claim attachment and collection order were served on the Defendant on November 7, 2013.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the claim amount to the plaintiffs.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant is not liable to pay the service price to D.

Therefore, the plaintiff cannot respond to the request.

2. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013GaGa121694 regarding D, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment regarding D’s wage, etc., the Plaintiffs received the instant claim seizure and collection order as to D’s service payment claim against the Defendant on November 4, 2013. The fact that D’s delivery of the instant claim seizure and collection order to the Defendant on November 7, 2013 does not conflict between the parties, but the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs alone is insufficient to acknowledge that D had the service payment claim as asserted by the Plaintiffs against the Defendant. However, there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the seizure and collection order of this case are invalid as it relates to a non-existent claim.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.