A. On May 15, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with the Defendant to charter the Plaintiff’s vessel to the Defendant, and the Defendant has not yet paid charterage 26,785,000 (including value-added tax) regarding the said vessel on January 1, 2015, there is no dispute between the parties.

B. The portion of the claim for collection was determined by the above court on March 26, 2015 from the application for the collection and seizure of claims and the collection order, which was filed by the Jeju District Court No. 2015TTT Co., Ltd., the garnishee, the garnishee, the Industrial Bank of Korea, and the new bank that was made by a notary public as the debtor under the notarial deed of debt repayment contract (No. 125, 2015, No. 1255, which was made between the debtor and the defendant on the basis of the document of debt payment contract made between the debtor, the third debtor, the Industrial Bank of Korea, and the new bank, and the above decision was issued with the above court on March 26, 2015. The amount of the claim against the defendant on the above decision is 44 million won, and the claim against the defendant on the Hysung Shipping Co., Ltd. is the amount up to the above claim amount among the amount paid by the defendant on the leased ship between the debtor and the defendant, and the above decision is recognized as follows.

However, in a lawsuit for collection, the existence of a claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). It is insufficient to recognize that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was insufficient to determine whether a charter party was made between the company and the Defendant, and that another company has claims worth KRW 40 million against the Defendant under any pretext, etc.

Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against this part is accepted.