1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. D was sentenced to a punishment of four and a half years of imprisonment with prison labor (Tgu High Court 2017No324) and the withdrawal of an appeal became final and conclusive due to the fact that D borrowed money from many persons, including the Plaintiff, without any intention or ability to complete payment.

B. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit (this Court Decision 2017Da10197) filed against D is that “D shall pay to the Plaintiff 34,124,493 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 25% per annum from January 13, 2017 to the date of full payment.”

C. The Defendants are parents of D. D.

The Plaintiff was issued a collection order (this court 2017TTT 17400; hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against the title of execution, against D’s claim for return of principal and interest against Defendant B based on a monetary loan agreement, and against Defendant C’s claim for return of principal and interest 29,288,940 won.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Defendants asserted the Plaintiff’s primary assertion (1) are obligated to pay the amount equivalent to the claims seized according to the instant seizure and collection order to the Plaintiff.

(2) (A) In a collection suit based on the collection order, the existence of the seized claim must be proved by the Plaintiff.

(B) On June 11, 2015, the Plaintiff did not comply with the instant court’s order to prepare for clarification, stating that D has a large amount of money remitted to the Defendants’ account, and that it did not comply with the Defendant’s claim to clarify what the claim is.

Since the seizure and collection order of this case was issued against D's loan claims against D's Defendants, it would prejudice the Plaintiff's intent to collect the relevant claims.

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 5 and the whole purport of oral argument, D has several hours from January 2016 to January 2017.