추심금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 reveals the overall purport of the pleadings, based on the claim of the Seoul Western District Court 2006Kadan26499 rendered on April 26, 2016, based on the claim of the Seoul Western District Court 2006Kadan26499 against the debtor B, the plaintiff was issued a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim for the "amount until the amount reaches KRW 95,375,000 out of the claim for the refund of the lease deposit against the defendant who is the third debtor of Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government (hereinafter referred to as "claim for the refund of the deposit of this case"), and the above collection order was served on the defendant on May 2, 2016.
The plaintiff asserts that the third debtor, as the cause of the claim of this case, is liable to pay KRW 95,375,00 to the plaintiff, the collection obligee, according to the above collection order.
However, there is no evidence to prove that the defendant bears the above obligation to return the deposit amount against the above B (the defendant asserts that the above B is living together with his relative, but it is not possible to conclude a lease contract). The plaintiff's above assertion cannot be accepted.
Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is unfair and thus dismissed.