A. First, in the instant case where the Plaintiff filed a claim for collection against the Defendant, who is the garnishee, with the claim against Nonparty C as the execution claim against Nonparty C, the Defendant asserts that the said execution claim has been extinguished by repayment and set-off, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

On the other hand, the absence or extinguishment of an execution claim cannot be denied by the Defendant, who is the third obligor, as a defense, in a lawsuit for collection of the grounds for a claim objection, which would be asserted by the execution obligor in the lawsuit for collection of the claim (see Supreme Court Decisions 94Da34012, Nov. 11, 1994; 2015Da25570, May 30, 2017). The above defense itself is without merit.

Although the defendant asserts that it is unreasonable to proceed with additional procedures, such as filing of an objection, the defendant is not in the nature that the defendant might not cause any concern as it is a problem between the non-party C and the plaintiff.

B. Next, since the Defendant agreed to withdraw the instant lawsuit between the Plaintiff and Nonparty C, the instant lawsuit is unlawful. However, the Defendant cannot be deemed to have reached an agreement to withdraw the lawsuit that is not a party to the instant case. Thus, the said defense itself is without merit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. The following facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in accordance with Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, 3, 8, 9, and the whole purport of the pleadings:

1) From around September 10, 2010, Nonparty C operated mechanical repair and processing companies with the trade name “D”, which lent the Plaintiff’s business registration name. Nonparty C supplied the Defendant (F in the name of the nominal owner of the business registration) who actually runs the Defendant (F in the name of the nominal owner of the business registration) who actually runs the business of “E” with the goods equivalent to KRW 76,868,00 in total of the market price on March 2, 2012 and March 30, 2012. (ii) The Plaintiff supplied C with the loans and indemnity amounting to KRW 71,00,000.