1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On August 19, 2015, the Defendant established the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with respect to the land size of 2635 square meters in Gohap-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Kimcheon-gun, a self-owned owner, set up the right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) with the maximum debt amount of KRW 54 million.

B. (1) On March 26, 2019, the Plaintiff received an assignment order of claim attachment (this court 2019TT 3077; hereinafter “instant attachment assignment order”) from the obligor and the Defendant as the third obligor.

The attachment assignment order of this case was served on the defendant and D around that time.

(2) The attachment assignment order of this case indicated the “a claim to be entirely attached” as the “a claim to be attached” with the maximum debt amount of KRW 54,00,000,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence A Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion D lent KRW 54 million to the Defendant and was set up the instant right to collateral security.

In accordance with the instant attachment assignment order, D’s loan claims were entirely transferred to the Plaintiff.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 54 million and damages for delay.

B. (1) In the event there is no secured claim, seizure order against the secured claim is null and void.

An execution creditor must prove whether there has been a juristic act establishing a secured claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da107408 Decided April 28, 201). (2) In full view of the evidence submitted, it is insufficient to recognize that D lent KRW 54 million to the Defendant.

Rather, the Plaintiff voluntarily filed a lawsuit against D seeking revocation of fraudulent act, etc. (this Court Order 2019Da14711) by asserting that the Defendant created the instant right to collateral with D and without actual obligation, and is pending in the lawsuit.

(2) No. 2-3) The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed on the grounds that it is not reasonable.