1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. According to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant and C shall be a friendship, and on June 3, 2015, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that a notary public of C, on June 3, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of a law firm document No. 883, 2014, he/she received a seizure and collection order for KRW 65,00,000 from among the claims to return the purchase price to the Defendant with respect to the Busan Jin-gu D2, Busan, Busan, which C had against the Defendant, based on the Busan District Court’s 2015T No. 13055, Jun. 5, 2015.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the collection amount of KRW 65,00,00,000 and delay damages, as the Defendant had a claim for the refund of the purchase price as to the above E by selling D 2nd floor E to the Defendant, who is the birthee of Busan Jin-gu, Busan, which he operated, to the Defendant.

B. Since the existence of a claim to be collected in a judgment of collection amount is a requisite fact, the plaintiff, the collection obligee, bears the burden of proof for the existence of a claim against the third obligor against the debtor, the collection obligee.

However, with respect to whether C has a claim for the purchase price against the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is not sufficient to recognize this only by health team and the result of the Defendant’s examination, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is difficult to accept.

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