1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. B filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of the construction price and damages for delay with this Court 201Gahap5071 and was sentenced on February 8, 2013 to the judgment that “the Plaintiff shall pay to B 311,652,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 6% per annum from June 7, 2000 to February 8, 2002, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment” (hereinafter “instant judgment”). The instant judgment became final and conclusive on March 1, 2013.

B. B is the amount collected from the Defendant on February 9, 2015 by the compulsory execution against the corporeal movables owned by the Plaintiff in the instant judgment at KRW 1,673,150.

On February 24, 2015, the Plaintiff notified the transfer to the Plaintiff and the notification was delivered to the Plaintiff on the same day.

C. On February 26, 2015, the Defendant was granted the execution clause (hereinafter referred to as “instant succession execution clause”) with respect to the original copy of the instant judgment by the court clerk C, the title of which is himself/herself, from the court clerk C.

On March 12, 2015, the Defendant filed an application for the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) with the competent court as to the Plaintiff’s future rent claim against D, E, and F, with the authentic copy of the instant judgment as the executive title.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 through 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Article 4(1)3 and (2) of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act (hereinafter “Credit Information Act”) provides that the transfer of the instant claim by the Plaintiff is mainly aimed at conducting procedural acts, or that “a person who intends to engage in claims collection business shall obtain permission from the Financial Services Commission.” Since the transfer of the instant claim is null and void in violation of Article 4(1)3 and (2) of the Credit Information Use and Protection Act, it is premised on the validity of the transfer