1. The Defendant’s KRW 52,774,327 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 6% per annum from February 27, 2018 to October 30, 2018.

1. The written statement of basic facts for seed collection has a claim for the amount of at least 52,774,327 won against the defendant, and the plaintiff, based on the executory exemplification of a notarial deed as to the written statement of seed collection, received a collection order for KRW 52,774,327 from among the claims for the purchase of goods against the defendant in the written statement of seed collection under the Daegu District Court Kimcheon-ro 2018, Kim 169, and the seizure and collection order for the above claims were issued. The fact that the above claims are served on the defendant on January 23, 2018 does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, 52,774,327 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum under the Commercial Act from February 27, 2018, which is the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, to October 30, 2018, which is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute over the existence and scope of the obligation to perform, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from the next day to the date of complete payment.

As from January 24, 2018, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay from January 24, 2018, but the collection order is limited to granting to the execution creditor the right to collect the debtor's claim against the third debtor, and does not order the third debtor to pay the creditor the amount equivalent to the amount of the claim seized to the execution creditor, or does not specify the payment deadline. Thus, the third debtor is liable for delay as to the amount equivalent to the amount of the claim seized to the execution creditor, not from the time when the execution court receives the delivery of the collection order from the execution court, but from the date after the execution creditor receives the claim for the collection from the execution creditor after the issuance of the collection order (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da47117, Oct. 25, 2012).

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is accepted.