1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The Plaintiff sought the payment of the collection amount to the Defendant by asserting that the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order against C’s benefit claim against C by designating the claim against C as the claim against C, and that the seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant.

In a lawsuit for collection, the existence of a claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). According to the evidence No. 3, C is recognized as a defendant's internal director, but it is insufficient to recognize the existence and scope of a claim for payment to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit without further review as to the remaining points.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.