1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

On March 11, 2016, the Plaintiff was determined to attach and collect the claim amounting to KRW 100,000,000 as Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016TTBE 201, Seoul Western District Court Decision 2016TBE 50968.

The above decision indicates the claim to be seized as "the amount of money until it reaches the above claim out of the remuneration and money claims which the debtor has regularly received against the third party obligor stated on the date of specification of property in Seoul Western District Court 2015Kao20911."

On March 16, 2016, the above ruling was served on the Defendant.

On the other hand, the list of property, which is submitted by Taeico Co., Ltd. on the date of specification of property in the case of the Seoul Western District Court 2015Kao 20911, includes service charges of KRW 77,00,000 (the end of each month) with the service charges of the defendant regularly received against the defendant, monetary claims against the defendant, KRW 4,872,539,524,529,529, 629,119,70, 71,598,580, respectively.

(Reasons for Recognition: The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 2 and 3’s entries, the purport of the whole pleadings). The phrase “a claim that the debtor has stated on the date when the property is registered in Seoul Western District Court 2015Kao20911, the Seoul Western District Court 2015Kao20911,” in itself, cannot be deemed to have been specified as the subject of seizure, since it is entirely impossible to ascertain what kind of claim is stated on the date when the property is registered.

Furthermore, as the defendant has three claims for remuneration (service fees) and three monetary claims monthly against the defendant, the amount exceeds the plaintiff's claim amount, the defendant cannot be seen at all as to what extent his claims were seized.

Therefore, the seizure based on the above order of seizure and collection is null and void because the seized claim is not specified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da9952, Feb. 10, 201; 201Da38394, Nov. 15, 2012; 2013Da216273, Sept. 10, 2015).