1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, with the trade name of “D”, drafted a certificate of execution No. 637 of the notary E Office, 2014, with respect to the claim of KRW 156 million for the panty and gas bags against “D” with respect to the non-party C, who operates a manufacturing business, such as White iron refining.

B. On September 25, 2014, the Plaintiff: (a) received a provisional seizure order on the claim against C’s panty and gas-free goods-price claim amounting to KRW 80,000,000,000,000,000 for Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court 2014Kadan2474; and (b) Defendant Sacker (hereinafter “Defendant Sacker”); (c) served the Defendants on September 29, 2014; (d) received a provisional seizure order against C’s panty and gas-related goods-price claim amounting to KRW 26,310,260; and (e) served the Defendants on September 29, 2014; and (e) on May 1, 2015, the instant provisional seizure was transferred to the Defendant as the provisional seizure order.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), witness C of the first instance trial, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion C has a claim for the amount of KRW 80,00,000 against Defendant Sshacker and KRW 26,310,260 against Defendant B. Since the plaintiff received a seizure and collection order against each of the above goods payment claims by C, it is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 80,000,000,000 for each of the above goods payment claims by Defendant C, and the defendant B is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of KRW 26,310,260 for each of them.

B. In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the claims against Sweet Sweet and Sweet and the written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 through 6, C supplied goods to Sweet from May 2014 to September 30, 2014, and the provisional attachment order of this case was served to Sweet and the fact that the goods payment claim of this case was 34,840,925 is recognized (the provisional attachment order of this case is served to Sweet and Sweker).