The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. Based on the judgment of the Cheongju District Court No. 2012Gau19424, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order against C, as to KRW 96,491,312 out of the loan repayment claims, from January 1, 2013 to the present date, as to May 29, 2019 against C, the Cheongju District Court No. 2012Gau19424.

B. On July 4, 2019, the above order of seizure and collection was served on the Defendant on July 4, 2019, and on July 12, 2019, and C appealed appealed on the above order of seizure and collection. However, C appealed on December 12, 2019, and thereafter, the above order of seizure and collection became final and conclusive.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Around five years prior to the Plaintiff’s assertion, C, who was in charge of the business, borrowed KRW 50 million from D officers E and lent it to the Defendant. The Defendant used the above money to pay the lease deposit of the house at which the Defendant is currently living.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above loan to the plaintiff who received a collection order as to the above loan refund claim.

B. The defendant's assertion has no interest in borrowing money from C.

Therefore, C does not have a duty to pay the money to the Plaintiff as the collection obligee.

3. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the Defendant and the Defendant’s father C, on June 3, 2014, prepared a promissory note No. 50 million won to E, borrowed from E to use the said money in concluding an apartment lease agreement under the name of the Defendant.

B. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by each of the above evidence are as follows: ① the Defendant bears the joint and several liability for E along with C, and it is difficult to readily conclude that the above KRW 50 million from E was reverted to C only, and that it was transferred to the Defendant, and ② even if it was leased by C.