1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff asserted that the instant claim is the cause of the claim. The Plaintiff asserted that, based on the Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na47650 (principal claim), and 4767 (Counterclaim), the Plaintiff filed a claim against C for the payment of the amount to be collected, the Seoul Central District Court 2015TTT 15907 claims and collection orders against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that C’s monthly benefit is only KRW 1.2 million.

2. On the other hand, the existence of a claim for collection in a claim for collection is a requisite fact (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007) and the burden of proof is borne by the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). Meanwhile, according to Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in the case of wage claims of which 1/2 of the balance excluding taxes

Therefore, the plaintiff, the collection right holder, should prove that C, the debtor of the collection order, is receiving the benefit exceeding KRW 1,50,000 per month from the defendant, who is the third debtor, except for taxes and public charges. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that C, the payment claim against the defendant exceeds KRW 1,50,000 per month, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.