1. The Defendant’s KRW 130,001,120 as well as 5% per annum from January 3, 2015 to February 17, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. From September 13, 2013 to August 6, 2014, the Defendant was supplied with fishery products, such as flowerss, from Hora Fishery Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tra Fishery”) and paid the price thereof.

B. From September 13, 2013 to December 31, 2013, the Defendant was provided with a total of KRW 1,662,680,000, and a total of KRW 112,820,000 from January 1, 2014 to August 6, 2014, and paid KRW 1,645,498,880, in total, to Saturdays for 23 occasions.

C. The Plaintiff filed a claim for the amount of KRW 300,000,000 based on the executory exemplification of a notarial deed No. 653, 2014, which was issued by the notary public in relation to local fisheries, with the Busan District Court 2014TT31070, and filed a claim for the seizure and collection order with respect to the claim for the above fishery product price against the Defendant of local fishery.

On December 1, 2014, the foregoing court issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to the claim for the payment of the above fishery products. The original copy of the said decision was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee on December 4, 2014.

On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of claim for the payment of the collection amount of KRW 300,000,000 according to the instant collection order, and the said certificate reaches the Defendant on January 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's 2 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul's 1 through 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff sought payment of KRW 300 million to the defendant, who is the third debtor of the collection order of this case. However, in the lawsuit for collection, the existence of the claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

That is, it is recognized that the fishery products price claim against the Defendant of Saturdays is KRW 300 million only with the descriptions of the evidence No. 1-1 and No. 2, respectively, (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007).