1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Head of Gu

Ga. The defendant is the plaintiff 90.

1. Basic facts

A. On the basis of the executory exemplification of the authentic deed in the case of a loan for consumption contract No. 471 (Quasi-Loan for Consumption) concluded by a notary public, the Plaintiff, on February 20, 2018, issued a bond amounting to KRW 2,493,179,891 (hereinafter “E”) to the Defendant, among the subrogated bond which the Daegu District Court Decision 2018Ma10410 (hereinafter “E”), out of the subrogated bond he/she owns against the Defendant. B. The instant seizure and collection order was delivered to the Defendant on May 21, 2018. Meanwhile, on behalf of the Chocheon-do borrowed KRW 100,000,000, it is assumed that the Defendant subrogated to the Defendant under the name of 10,000,000 won prior to October 30, 2014 (hereinafter “instant promise”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy Facts, Gap 1, 2, 3, and 4, each entry, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion is to request the Defendant to pay the collection amount according to the instant seizure and collection order based on the instant letter of undertaking.

As to this, the defendant asserted that there is no claim against the defendant of E under the letter of undertaking of this case.

B. The existence of a claim to be collected in a lawsuit for the collection amount is a requisite fact, and the burden of proof is the plaintiff who is the collection creditor.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided July 11, 2007, etc.). Based on the above legal principle, according to the records, it is confirmed that the difference between the defendant's seal affixed to the instant undertaking and the defendant's corporate seal affixed to the Defendant's corporate seal, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the authenticity of the instant undertaking. Thus, it cannot be deemed that E's claim exists based on the instant undertaking, and solely on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, claims against the Defendant arising from subrogation against the Defendant.