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

A. On July 19, 2019, the Plaintiff issued a collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) against the Defendant of the Daejeon District Court, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment regarding the claim for reimbursement, etc. under the Daejeon District Court’s 2017Gadan5811, which issued a seizure and collection order for the following claims against the Defendant of the C Building Management Body, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment regarding the claim for reimbursement, etc.

Claim Amount: Claims to be collected under the attachment of KRW 70,958,224: The amount of money received by the defendant from the occupants of the C building to be paid to the C building management body up to the above claim amount.

B. On August 2, 2019, the collection order of this case was served on the Defendant and became final and conclusive around that time.

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

2. From November 2018, the Defendant received management expenses of the building management body from the Defendant’s agricultural bank account, and the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 51,956,835, and KRW 400,000 for the execution expenses of the instant collection order, as the Plaintiff did not receive the principal and interest of the Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Gadan5811, Daejeon District Court Decision 2017Gadan5811, and KRW 52,356,835, according to the instant collection order (=51,956,835, 400,000) and delay damages therefrom.

3. Determination

A. The phrase “indicating a claim to be seized” should be objectively strictly interpreted in accordance with the content of the phrase itself, and if the meaning of the phrase is unclear, it is reasonable to impose any disadvantage therefrom on the requesting creditor. As such, a claim that a third party obligor may have an doubt as to whether it is included in understanding the phrase based on an average person with ordinary care should not be deemed included in the subject of seizure, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da47117, Oct. 25, 2012).

written evidence 1, 2, and 4 of this title.