1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) requested the Plaintiff to lend operating expenses to the Plaintiff for the development of the land of the Daegu-gu and five parcels owned by Nonparty Company D (hereinafter “instant land”). Accordingly, on February 10, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 150,000,000 to Nonparty Company at interest rate of 16% per annum, and “after the sale of the instant land” (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On September 30, 2015, Nonparty Company entered into a sales contract with the Defendant with the content that the instant land and the instant land E in Daegu-gu KRW 8 billion, but the down payment of KRW 1 billion on the date of the contract, the first intermediate payment of KRW 5.2 billion on September 2015, the second intermediate payment of KRW 80 million on October 2015, and the remainder of KRW 1 billion on January 5, 2016, respectively.

(hereinafter “instant sales contract,” and the sales price is “the sales price of the instant case.”

On November 30, 2018, the Plaintiff filed an order for payment with the Daegu District Court for seeking the payment of the instant loan, and the said court issued an order for payment (the above court 2018 tea532) stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 150,00,000 and the expenses for demand procedure calculated at the rate of 16% per annum from February 10, 2012 to the date of full payment” (the above court 2018 tea532). The said order was finalized on January 1, 2019.

C. The plaintiff

On January 22, 2019, the authentic copy of the payment order stated in the Paragraph (1) applied for the attachment and collection order with the title of execution, and on January 24, 2019, the Daegu District Court issued the attachment and collection order (the above court 2019TT 477; hereinafter “instant attachment and collection order”) with the following contents as follows. The above attachment and collection order were served on the non-party company, the debtor, and the defendant, the third debtor, on March 6, 2019.

In accordance with the main contents of this case's seizure and collection order, the creditor's third debtor is the defendant of the non-party company.