The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff, based on the deed of promissory note No. 22, 2016 (hereinafter “notarial deed of promissory note No. 22, 2016), issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to the benefit claim that C owns owns against the Defendant by the Seoul Central District Court as Seoul Central District Court No. 2019T No. 4558. The instant collection order was served on the Defendant on April 29, 2019.

B. However, as Seoul Central District Court 2019Kadan5183675, C filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff, which sought non-permission of compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes, and the said court rendered a judgment accepting C’s claim on the ground that there is no underlying claim, which became the cause for the issuance of the Promissory Notes, and there was no claim indicated in the Notarial Deed of Promissory Notes. The judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

C. C means May 14, 2020.

The judgment of the court of execution was submitted to the court of execution. On May 19, 2020, the court of execution decided to revoke the collection order of this case, and on May 25, 2020, notice of revocation and notification of cancellation was served to the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Gap's evidence 1, 2, Eul's evidence 4 to 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If there exists a seizure and collection order as to the claim of this case relating to the legitimacy of the lawsuit of this case, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee. The debtor is disqualified as the party to the lawsuit for performance against the seized claim. However, if the collection creditor has lost the ability of collection due to the withdrawal, etc. of the application for the seizure and collection order while the lawsuit for performance is pending, the debtor shall recover the qualification

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da64877, Nov. 25, 2010). In this case, the Plaintiff sought against the Defendant payment of the collection amount of KRW 45 million based on the instant collection order, but, as seen earlier, C filed a claim against the Plaintiff.