1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff has a claim for construction price equivalent to KRW 31,728,210 against Nonparty D based on the No. 831, 2014 No. 831, which was executed by notary public C Office.

B. Based on the above claim under the notarial deed, the Plaintiff applied for an order to seize and collect the sales price claims for the “The E Forest in Sejong Special Self-Governing City E,186 (hereinafter “the instant land”) held by Nonparty D against the Defendant,” and the decision became final and conclusive on November 12, 2014.

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including each number in the case of a tentative number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff is the plaintiff, since the legitimate right to collect the purchase price claim against the defendant of the non-party D is the right to collect the purchase price claim, the defendant asserts that he is obligated to pay KRW 31,728,210 out of the purchase price

As to this, the Defendant asserted that there is no obligation to be paid to the Plaintiff, since he/she purchased the instant land from D on February 10, 2014, however, he/she paid all remainder by the method designated by D on February 28, 2014.

B. According to the records in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant purchased the land of this case from D on February 10, 2014, and the down payment of KRW 190 million on the date of the contract is recognized respectively.

However, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, it is recognized that the F as designated by D on February 28, 2014 paid KRW 22,492,800 among the remainder and KRW 8,000,000 among the remainder, and that the F as designated by D on February 28, 2014 paid KRW 4,480,000 among the remainder, KRW 175,189,010, KRW 34,700,000, KRW 10,000,000, and KRW 10,400,000 for the debt or provisional seizure related to the land of this case to D respectively.

If so, on February 28, 2014, the Defendant paid all remaining money to purchase and sell the land of this case, and the Defendant’s obligation to purchase and sell the land of this case extinguished as repayment.

As such, it can be seen.