1. It is confirmed that the Plaintiff’s debt to collect KRW 40 million against the Defendant does not exist.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

1. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) on the basis of the notarial deed No. 88 of 2017, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter referred to as “the seizure and collection order of this case”) against C until a notary public of C received 50,000,000 among the loan claims preserved by the provisional seizure order against C, which was executed and preserved by the Seoul Southern District Court Decision No. 2017 Tadan10178, Jun. 8, 2017, as Seoul Southern District Court Decision No. 2017T as the garnishee and the Plaintiff as the garnishee; and (b) the above original copy of the decision was served on the Plaintiff around that time.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the assertion asserts that, since there is no loan claim of KRW 40 million against the Plaintiff, which is the claim subject to the seizure and collection order of this case, the Plaintiff did not exist, the Plaintiff asserts that there is no debt equivalent to the Plaintiff’s debt of collection against the Defendant, which is the creditor of C, the creditor of this case.

In this regard, the defendant also received the provisional attachment order as stated in the facts of recognition as to the real estate owned by the plaintiff, and it is contrary to the fact that the plaintiff bears the loan obligation of KRW 40 million against C.

B. The fundamental issue of the instant case is whether the Defendant’s loan claim amounting to KRW 40 million against the Plaintiff, claiming that the Defendant is the subject of the seizure and collection order.

The testimony of the witness D alone is insufficient to prove the existence of the above loan claim, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and even if C has received a provisional attachment decision on real estate owned by the plaintiff, the existence of the above loan claim cannot be inferred.

I would like to say.

Therefore, since there is no claim subject to the seizure and collection order of this case, there is no claim subject to the seizure and collection order of this case, there is no debt of collection amounting to 40 million won against the defendant, and as long as the defendant contests this, the profit of confirmation is also the same.