1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit.

1. The fact recognized (hereinafter referred to as the "principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously);

A. On March 14, 2018, the Seogu District Court issued a collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with the creditor, the debtor C and the third debtor as the defendant on March 14, 2018, and served the Defendant on March 20, 2018.

B. The claim subject to the collection order of this case is “the amount until it reaches 70,000,000 won out of the amount of the claim’s transport charge against the garnishee pursuant to the contract of carriage between the debtor and the third debtor according to the contract of carriage between the debtor and the third debtor”.

C. On April 16, 2018, the Defendant notified of the collection order of this case, paid KRW 8,001,021 (hereinafter “the amount of the collection claim of this case”) to the Plaintiff, which the Defendant is obligated to pay to C.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 5 and 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main claim

A. Since the Defendant’s obligation to be paid to C under a contract concluded between the Plaintiff’s assertion C and the Defendant exceeds the amount of the instant collection claim, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the remainder, excluding the amount of the said collection claim already paid from the amount of the claim in the collection order of this case, and the delay damages therefrom.

B. The existence of the seized claim in a collection lawsuit based on the relevant legal doctrine attachment and collection order should be proved by the Plaintiff.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40476, Jun. 11, 2015). In the seizure of claims, a third debtor is obliged to perform his/her duties under a seizure order as a legal dispute between others by another person. As such, it is necessary to protect the third debtor so that he/she does not have an excessive burden when grasping the claims seized or its scope.

Therefore, the phrase “the indication of a claim to be seized” shall be interpreted objectively in accordance with the content of the phrase itself.