(1) On December 12, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to the claim amount to KRW 74,052,60 among the claim amount of the sales price claim against the Defendant owned by the D Union as the title of execution against the Busan District Court Order 2016 tea9 (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

d. The instant collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee on December 15, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 74,052,600 collected and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from January 3, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) argues that the non-existence of an enforcement claim is a non-existent claim against the Plaintiff’s DF, or that DF’s DF’s DF’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s D’s debt repayment on or around May 12, 2015. The non-existence or extinction of enforcement claim cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff by asserting it as a defense by the Defendant, a third obligor, in the lawsuit of collection as to the grounds for the obligor’s objection, or in the lawsuit of collection, as a defense (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 94Da34012, Nov. 11, 1994; 96Da13781, Sept. 24, 196).