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

A. The Plaintiff holds monetary claims at the rate of 20% per annum from August 20, 2004 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “the instant judgment claim”) pursuant to the Daegu District Court Decision 2004Da23315 decided November 17, 2004, Daegu District Court Decision 2004Kadan23315 decided on November 17, 2004, and the amount of monetary claims at the rate of 31,818,280 won against B as well as from August 28, 2004 to the date of full payment

B. On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a delegation agreement with the Defendant for debt collection regarding the above claim (hereinafter “instant delegation agreement”).

C. After that, the Plaintiff filed an application for a collection order based on the above judgment claim through a certified judicial scrivener. On November 15, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Daegu District Court for a seizure and collection order based on the above judgment claim with the obligor B and the garnishee were the obligor B and the third obligor were the Korea Exchange Bank, the Nonghyup Bank, the Nonghyup Bank, the Daegu Bank, and the Daegu Bank, and the claim amount were KRW 90,670,650 (the principal amount of the judgment is KRW 31,818,280, and the damages for delay from August 28, 2004 to November 12, 2013 and KRW 58,615,370 as well as KRW 237,00 as expenses for execution and KRW 237,00 as expenses for the third obligor’s deposit claim against the obligor B and the third obligor were issued a collection order (hereinafter in this case).

However, at that time, the debtor B had no deposit account in the above Korea Exchange Bank and Daegu Bank, and the Nonghyup Bank had no deposit account, but there was no deposit balance.

Accordingly, the financial institutions, a third debtor, submitted a statement to the effect that all of the third debtor's statements about the existence of claims do not exist.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1, 2, 5 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that, after entering into the instant delegation agreement, upon receiving a decision of seizure of claims from D, who is the Defendant’s employee, the extinctive prescription of the claim was interrupted, and received the instant seizure and collection order through C certified judicial scrivener on the basis of D’s recommendation.

However, there is a problem.