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

A. From 1982 to 1982, the related defendant adopted and raised the plaintiff (1981) and the non-party C (1977) as his natural father, and reported the birth of the plaintiff on August 27, 1984, and C on October 5, 1989 as his natural father.

Then, on July 1, 2009, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant to confirm existence of paternity (Seoul Family Court 2009ddan63437) and confirmed on October 22, 2009 that the plaintiff is not the natural father of the defendant. The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 22, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff against Nonparty C was ordered to pay the Plaintiff KRW 95,00,000 and KRW 20% interest per annum from January 1, 2015 to the date of full payment. The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

C. Based on the original copy of the above payment order with the executory power of a collection order, the Plaintiff received the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the instant collection order”) relating to the claim and the execution cost of KRW 87,600, and the Defendant, who is the garnishee, on January 6, 2017, as the Head of Changwon District Court 2017Tari146, with the interest of KRW 133,78,577 (i.e., the principal amount of KRW 95,00,000,000, KRW 38,624,657, and KRW 87,600 (i.e., the execution cost of KRW 76,320). The instant collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee on February 6, 2017.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff's assertion is liable to pay C the amount of 13,788,577 won according to the collection order of this case, since the defendant bears the amount of 5,740,00 won of loan loan, 69,740,449 won of unjust enrichment or damages due to the exploitation of payment of C's benefits.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that C lent KRW 55,740,00 to the Defendant for determination as to the existence of the seized claim.

The arguments are made in each entry of evidence Nos. 2 to 4.