Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

A. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Incheon District Court for a payment order against E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) for a payment order seeking payment of goods at KRW 46,839,605, and on August 8, 2019, the payment order was issued and confirmed around that time.

B. Upon the above payment order, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,839,605, which was provisionally seized by the Incheon District Court pursuant to the wastewater treatment service agreement for Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) to this attachment, and additionally seized KRW 200,000,000,000, which was provisionally seized by the above provisional attachment among the non-claimed claims under the wastewater treatment service agreement for Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), as Incheon District Court 2019, 1962, and (2) among the non-claimed claims under the wastewater treatment service agreement for Defendant D, the Plaintiff applied for a collection order for KRW 46,839,605, which was additionally seized by the above provisional attachment, and the above court rendered a decision of acceptance on October 22, 2019.

The above ruling was delivered to Defendant C on October 25, 2019, and to Defendant D on October 23, 2019 (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) / [the grounds for recognition] without dispute, the fact that is significant to this court, entry in evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The existence of a claim subject to collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is against the Plaintiff, the obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jul. 11, 2007). Even when a claim subject to seizure and collection order is served after the claim subject to seizure is extinguished due to repayment, it is null and void as it concerns a claim for which the seizure and collection order does not exist (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da37426, Oct. 24, 2003). When the seizure and collection order of this case is served on the Defendants, it is deemed that the Plaintiff had a claim for the wastewater treatment service payment against the Defendants sought by the Defendants in this case.

First of all, the Corporation.