1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant owed C (hereinafter “C”) the obligation to pay waste disposal expenses under the waste disposal contract, and the total amount of the obligation accumulated by September 15, 2009 to KRW 25,782,960.

B. D Co., Ltd. (the later trade name was changed to E Co., Ltd.; hereinafter “D”) filed an application for provisional attachment against C’s Defendant for waste disposal expenses claim against C (hereinafter “instant claim”).

On September 23, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kadan8957 (hereinafter referred to as the "decision of provisional seizure of this case") was issued, and the decision was served on the defendant, who is the garnishee on September 28, 2009.

C. D filed a lawsuit against C seeking the return of KRW 1,956,50,000 against unjust enrichment, and obtained a favorable judgment as Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap41668, which became final and conclusive.

After acquiring from D the aforementioned claim for return of unjust enrichment against C and the status of the person entitled to the provisional seizure of this case, the Plaintiff transferred the claim of KRW 1,235,053,505 out of the claim for provisional seizure of this case to the original seizure by Seoul Central District Court 2017TTT No. 101643, Feb. 13, 2017; and issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the collection order of this case”) that can collect the claim on behalf of C, the debtor, and the Defendant, the garnishee, was served on February 16, 2017.

Accordingly, the amount of the claim of this case transferred from a provisional seizure to a provisional seizure is KRW 25,782,960.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, the collection right holder of C the amount of the claim of this case, KRW 25,782,960, and the delay damages therefor, unless there are special circumstances.

B. One of the judgment on the defense of extinctive prescription is the defendant, and the claim of this case is the commercial claim.