1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 35,069,008, and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 10, 2018 to the date of full payment.

1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff: (a) filed a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with the Gwangju District Court 2018TB on February 14, 2018 with respect to KRW 35,069,008 with respect to KRW 34,629,309, including the agreed amount and interest, based on the debt repayment agreement as of November 3, 2015 against the Defendant, with the notary public of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) as the claim claim amount of KRW 37,629,309 according to the No. 37 of the No. 37 of the No. 2018, the Plaintiff received the claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “the instant collection order”) from the Defendant on March 28, 2018.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, a collection obligee, the amount of KRW 34,629,309, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 10, 2018 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the instant complaint.

2. On November 3, 2015, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the collection of the instant collection amount is unjustifiable, since the Defendant entered into an agreement on the repayment of debt with D on November 3, 2015, and entered into an agreement on the preservation of confidentiality and the prohibition of assignment of claims to prevent claims by other creditors from being collected or seized, and the Plaintiff was grossly negligent in having known

Even if there was a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, this only grants the execution creditor the right to collect the claim against the third debtor in the course of compulsory execution, and this does not mean that the claim held by the debtor against the third debtor is transferred or reverted to the execution creditor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 96Da54300, Mar. 14, 1997). Moreover, even if a claim under a special agreement between the parties on the prohibition of transfer exists, it may be transferred according to the attachment and assignment order.