1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The representative director of Defendant C Co., Ltd on September 29, 2005

D. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Company”)

(C) The Defendant Company and the Defendant Company, on August 26, 2013, made a notarial deed under a monetary loan agreement with the effect of lending KRW 700,000,000 (No. 1033, 205). (b) On October 12, 2010, Defendant B determined and lent KRW 50,000,000 to D as of November 11, 2012, interest, KRW 1,000,000, and due date. The Defendant Company guaranteed D’s loan repayment obligations with respect to Defendant B. (c) On August 26, 2013, the Defendant Company and the Defendant Company determined the principal and interest of the borrowed amount as set forth in the above Paragraph (b) as KRW 70,00,000,000, with respect to the obligation to repay the obligation, transferred the entire obligation related to the Defendant Company’s (hereinafter “instant obligation related to logistics”).

(2) On August 30, 2013, the Defendant Company notified the effect as a certificate with a fixed date. (3) The effectiveness of the notice of assignment of claims was served on September 2, 2013.

In relation to the instant claim, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order (Seoul District Court 2013TTTT25778), and served on September 3, 2013, the seizure and collection order of the said claim.

Accordingly, on October 4, 2013, the deposited person was the defendant company or defendant B, and the debt amount of 30,433,979 won, which the defendant company bears to the defendant company in connection with the above contracts for out-of-distribution, was mixed deposited pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Code and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

(In Incheon District Court No. 7289, the deposit of this case). (e)

As to the above mixed deposit ground, filial duty is valid, the special agreement between the defendant and the non-assignment of the assignment of claims was made, and the plaintiff was served with the seizure and collection order. As such, filial duty can be judged as filial duty such as invalidity of the transfer of claims, priority of the seizure and collection order.