1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3...

1. Basic facts

A. On November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the payment of the purchase price of goods against Codefendant B of the first instance trial (hereinafter “B”), and was sentenced to a favorable judgment by the competent court that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 54,904,470 won and the interest calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 1, 2015 to September 21, 2015, 6% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment became final and conclusive on December 15, 2015.

B. On May 24, 2016, based on the foregoing final judgment, the Plaintiff received an order to seize and collect the claim for the return of the lease deposit against the apartment in the attached list B (hereinafter “instant apartment”) against the Defendant by taking the claim amount as KRW 61,234,199, the amount of which is KRW 61,234,00,00 from the Suwon District Court Branch of Suwon Branch of 2016,572 (hereinafter “instant collection order”).

The instant collection order was served on June 11, 2016 on the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion B leased the apartment of this case from the defendant, and the term of lease expires, and thus the defendant has the right to deliver the apartment of this case and the right to return the lease deposit.

The plaintiff claims the payment of KRW 61,234,199, which is the amount claimed by the collection order of this case, with its claim as the collection bond of this case.

3. The existence of a claim in a claim for the amount of collection, as a requisite fact, must be proved by the plaintiff who is the collection obligee.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007). B does not have any evidence to deem that the Defendant entered into a lease agreement with respect to the instant apartment.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in B 1, 2, and 3, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement on the instant apartment between E and E on October 18, 2012, and E resides in the instant apartment until now.