2. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants respectively.

The Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the Ulsan District Court 2014TTT as the debtor, the co-defendant C of the first instance trial, and the Defendants as the third debtor. On September 23, 2014, the aforementioned court issued a seizure and collection order with respect to “the total amount of KRW 3 million for each of the Defendants among the lease deposit claims paid by the Defendants to the lessee for the commercial building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendants (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), among the lease deposit claims provided by the Defendants in the lease agreement on the commercial building listed in the separate sheet owned by the Defendants (hereinafter “the instant real estate”), and issued a collection order on September 29, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant collection order”) to the Defendants on September 29, 2014.

Judgment

The plaintiff asserts that according to the collection order of this case, the defendants are liable to pay each of 1.5 million won and the delay damages to the plaintiff, the collection obligee.

Only on the basis of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is insufficient to recognize that an information and communications network paid a lease deposit for the instant real estate to the Defendants and the occurrence of the lease deposit claims, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

The plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants is unfair in its conclusion, and thus, it is revoked by accepting the appeal by the Defendants, and the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed.