1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 4, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure against claim against the Defendant of the Dae Metal Industry Co., Ltd., as the right to preserve the goods price claim, with respect to KRW 6,739,013 among the goods price claim against the Defendant of the Dae Metal Industry Co., Ltd., the Suwon District Court rendered a decision on provisional seizure against claim (hereinafter “decision on provisional seizure against claim of this case”). The instant decision on provisional seizure against claim of this case was served on the Defendant on September 11, 2014.

B. The Plaintiff filed an application with the said court for a payment order to the effect that the Plaintiff, as the other party, sought the price for goods under the said court No. 2014 tea4078, and the said court issued a payment order on September 1, 2014, and the said payment order was finalized on September 20, 2014.

C. Based on the above order of payment finalized, the Plaintiff applied for a provisional seizure and collection order against the money of KRW 6,739,013, among the goods payment claims held against the Defendant by the Daegu Metal Industry Co., Ltd., for a provisional seizure and collection order against the money of KRW 6,739,013. On October 2, 2014, the above court issued a provisional seizure and collection order on October 8, 2014, where the provisional seizure is transferred to the original seizure, and the above order was served on the Defendant on October 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The parties’ assertion asserts that, while the Plaintiff seeks the Defendant to pay the collection amount of KRW 6,739,013 and damages for delay thereof, the Defendant paid the full amount of the unpaid goods to the Dae Metal Industry Co., Ltd. on September 4, 2014, prior to receiving the provisional attachment decision of this case, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff cannot accept the Plaintiff’s claim due to lack of claims for collection.

B. We examine whether a claim for collection exists or not, and on September 11, 2014, the Defendant served the provisional attachment decision of this case, and the existence of a claim for the price of goods against the Defendant of the Daegu Metal Industry Co., Ltd.