1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff issued an order for payment of KRW 198,374,840 against Samsan Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Tyeong Industrial”), which was issued by Ulsan District Court Decision 2013 tea2647, and damages for delay thereof, and the said payment order was finalized on June 20, 2013.

B. As to the amount claimed as the executive title of the above payment order and the total amount of KRW 232,194,468, including the above amount of KRW 198,374,840 and delay damages, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the following claims against the Defendant of the Samwon District Court Branch of Suwon District on April 15, 2014:

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant seizure and collection order”).

The seized claim is "the amount of money to be paid to the defendant (including bonds existing or to be incurred in the future) in accordance with the clinical Processing Contract until the above claim is made out of the proceeds of processing."

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap 1, 3, Gap 2-1, 2-2

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion Tropic industry is being entrusted by the Defendant with the processing of the raw materials of contact contact with the sales of the consignment processing cost of KRW 40 million from each month to KRW 50 million.

The Plaintiff, based on the collection order based on the seizure and collection order of the instant case, seek against the Defendant as the collection authority for the payment of KRW 30 million and the delay damages therefrom, out of the above processing price claim against the Defendant for the third party industry as the collection authority.

3. Determination

(a) The existence of the seized claim in a collection lawsuit based on the collection order, shall be attested by the creditor;

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40476 Decided June 11, 2015, etc.) B.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 4, it can only be recognized that the third-party industry had sold electricity and rent between January 5, 2015 and November 9, 2015, and the purchase of T-10 items between T-20 and the defendant.

At a certain time in the past, the purchase and sale of a certain amount between the three-dimensional industry and the defendant was conducted.