1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed No. 2013, 4466 of the notarial deed, the Plaintiff filed an application for a seizure and collection order with a notary public to the effect that C, a garnishee, a school juristic person, a mining institute of the Republic of Korea, a defendant, and a claim amounting to KRW 90,000,000,000 with the obligor C, a school juristic person of the third obligor, a mining institute of the Republic of Korea, a defendant, and a claim amounting to KRW 90,000,000,000 from among the amount of supply of food materials, etc. possessed by C against the Defendant, and the above court issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the above claim on April 23, 2014, and the above decision was served on the Defendant on April 28,

B. Since then, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order to the effect that the obligor C, the garnishee, the Defendant, the claim amounting to KRW 40 million with the Defendant and the claim amounting to KRW 40 million with respect to the goods of the food materials, etc. owned by C, and the profits from the restaurant operation with respect to the Defendant. On July 8, 2014, the above court issued the seizure and collection order with respect to the above claim.

C. On July 11, 2014, the instant order of seizure and collection was served on the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff asserted and determined the instant claim against the Defendant for the payment of KRW 13,246,596 of the collection amount and delay damages according to the collection order and seizure of the instant claim.

In a lawsuit for collection, the existence of a claim to be collected is a requisite fact and the burden of proof exists on the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). Therefore, the plaintiff must prove that C has a claim against the defendant for the price of supply subject to the seizure and collection of the collection order and proceeds from the operation of the restaurant.

According to the results of this court's inquiry, C and . are examined. The above evidence and Eul evidence and evidence No. 2, and the fact inquiry about D and D-Eup.