1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2, 2008, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for each of its claims (U.S. District Court Branch 2007Gadan52484), and the said court rendered a judgment to the effect that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff, 25,629,240 won, and 6% per annum from January 27, 2007 to February 4, 2008, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

B. On May 31, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a collection order for the amount up to the above claim amount among the lease deposit against the Defendant as KRW 69,623,980 (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to the amount from among the lease deposit against the Defendant of the Incheon District Court as the Incheon District Court Branch Branch 2016TTT4243 (hereinafter “instant collection order”).

The above collection order was served on June 8, 2016 on the defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Lawsuits for the claim for the determination of the cause of the claim are claims filed by the creditor who received the collection order on his/her own name and without representing or subrogated the debtor's all rights necessary for the collection of the claims seized. The existence of the claims to be collected is required to be asserted and proved by the plaintiff, who is the collection creditor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). The Plaintiff claims the collection amount based on the collection order of this case on the premise that C has the right to return the lease deposit against the Defendant.

However, in full view of all the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize the existence of C’s claim for return of lease guarantee against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(The defendant asserts that there is no entry into a lease agreement with C, and that D is only entered into a lease agreement with D, and that C is less than that of D's employee who has resided in the house owned by the defendant.