1. The defendant's judgment against the plaintiff is based on the Changwon District Court Decision 2015Na20750 decided on unjust enrichment against the defendant.

1. The defendant's assistant intervenor asserts that the lawsuit of this case filed against the defendant is unlawful, since the defendant's assistant intervenor acknowledged the standing to be a party against the defendant's assistant intervenor as the collection right holder and the defendant lost the standing to be a party, due to the defendant's assistant intervenor's seizure and collection order as to claims based on the judgment mentioned in Paragraph 1

However, according to the evidence evidence evidence No. 6, it is recognized that the plaintiff made an execution deposit pursuant to Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act with respect to the whole amount of claims based on the judgment stated in the Disposition No. 1 of this case. If the execution deposit is made pursuant to Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act, the seized claim shall be extinguished, the seizure order shall lose its effect by accomplishing its purpose, and the status of the execution creditor shall be converted to the status of the creditor who is entitled to receive dividends for the execution deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da2609, Jan. 31, 2019). The above argument by the defendant assistant intervenor who has already lost the collection power

2. The fact that the judgment on the cause of the claim was completely extinguished by the Plaintiff’s execution deposit pursuant to Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act with respect to the total amount of claims based on the judgment stated in paragraph (1) of this Article. Therefore, compulsory execution based on the above judgment against the Plaintiff cannot be permitted.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.