1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Under the underlying facts, the Plaintiff filed an application with C for a payment order of the gold payment order as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Hu1327478, and on November 12, 2018, the payment order accepting all the Plaintiff’s claims (hereinafter “instant payment order”) was issued as of November 12, 2018. The instant payment order was finalized around December 12, 2018.

On August 5, 2019, the Plaintiff is entitled to execute the instant payment order. The debtor C and C filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the defendant and the claimed amount of KRW 56,326,237 against the defendant. On August 12, 2019, Gwangju District Court 2019, issued a seizure and collection order with respect to each of the claims indicated in the separate sheet as 62150 (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”), and the seizure and collection order of this case were served on the defendant around August 16, 2019.

[Grounds for recognition] The substantial facts in this court and the purport of the whole argument

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s assertion (1) is that the Plaintiff, as the cause of the claim, received the instant seizure and collection order as to each claim indicated in the attached Form C against the Defendant, with the title of enforcement of the instant payment order, and thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the collection amount indicated in the purport of the claim and the delayed damages.

(2) In regard to this, the Defendant asserts to the purport that the Defendant’s claim is groundless, since the amount of benefits paid to C falls short of the minimum cost of living, there are no claims, such as wages that the Defendant would pay to C, and rather, there are only loans that the Defendant would have to receive from C.

B. In a collection lawsuit based on the collection order, the existence of the seized claim should be attested by the creditor (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da4076 Decided June 11, 2015).