1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 12, 2015, the Plaintiff drafted a notarial deed (No. 1387, 2015, No. 1387, hereinafter “instant notarial deed”) containing the purport of recognizing compulsory execution with respect to “The monetary loan agreement with the effect that G borrows KRW 400 million from the Plaintiff and that C guarantees the joint and several obligation of the said loan.”

B. On March 30, 2016, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the seizure and collection (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against the obligor B, the Defendant as the garnishee, and the third obligor, with the title of execution of the instant notarial deed as the title of execution, and the order was served on the Defendant on March 30, 2016.

C. In the column of indicating the claim to be seized and collected under the seizure and collection order of this case, “the amount paid by the obligor (C) by subrogation for the construction cost to be paid by the garnishee (Defendant)” is specified as “the amount to be refunded by the obligor (C) from the garnishee (Defendant) up to KRW 400,176,200 (total of the debt amount of the above joint and several surety and the execution cost)” among the claims to be refunded by the obligor (Defendant).

On April 22, 2016, the Defendant transferred KRW 30 million to the H Bank Account under C’s name (Gu I, the current F BankJ).

[Ground of Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 18 (including paper numbers), F Bank's response to financial transaction information submitted by F Bank, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the non-existence of executive title claim

A. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Plaintiff’s claim against C on the Notarial Deed, a title of execution of the seizure and collection order, does not exist. Therefore, the instant claim is without merit.

B. In a lawsuit for collection filed based on the collection order, which was issued by designating the notarial deed as the name of the debt, the obligor cannot oppose the collection obligee with the ground that it can be asserted as a lawsuit for objection such as non-existence of the execution claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 97Da23105 delivered on August 29, 1997). Accordingly, the defendant's status.