1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty B, while operating “D” as a manufacturer of motor vehicle parts at a factory located in Gyeongsan-si, was processed and supplied to the Defendant by processing a motor vehicle flag (6T40 PAK GER).

The plaintiff sold cut tools to B.

B. The Plaintiff received a provisional attachment order (Seoul District Court Seo-gu District Court Decision 2015Kadan2028) against “The purchase price claim of goods, such as automobile parts, against the Defendant in the U.S., 94,642,007 won,” and the said decision was served on the Defendant on August 24, 2015.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty B (D Company) on the merits of the provisional seizure against the said claim (Seoul District Court Branch Branch No. 2015Kadan16525) and sentenced that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff 94,642,007 won and damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum from August 1, 2015 to September 7, 2015, 5% per annum, 20% per annum from the next day to September 30, 2015, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.”

Based on the above judgment, the Plaintiff: (a) transferred the provisional attachment of KRW 94,642,007 to the Defendant as a provisional attachment; (b) additionally seized KRW 7,986,881 to the Defendant of KRW 102,628,881; and (c) obtained a collection order that grants the Defendant the right to collect KRW 102,628,888 in total ( Daegu District Court 2016TTTTT1564); and (d) the collection order was served on March 15, 2016 to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including provisional lot number: hereinafter the same shall apply), Gap evidence 5-8, Eul witness E's testimony, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is obligated to pay 102,628,888 won to the plaintiff who is the collection obligee.

B. The Defendant’s delay in the supply of the defense B suffered damage from the Defendant’s expenditure of air freight, and B agreed that the amount was 315,000,000 won through consultation with the Defendant, and thus, there is no claim for the purchase price of the goods that the Plaintiff could collect.

3. Determination

(a) At the time of June 30, 2015, the fact of recognition.