1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. The Plaintiff, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered in the case of the loan by the Jung-gu District Court 2008Gaso67228 against D, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the seizure and collection order of the instant claim”) with respect to D’s claim amounting to KRW 24,121,643 as to the amount of the claim for the return of the lease deposit against D’s Defendants within the scope of KRW 24,121,643, as to May 26, 2014. The Plaintiff was issued the seizure and collection order of the instant claim to Defendant C on May 30, 2014, and each of the Defendant B on July 3, 2014.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The Defendants alleged by the Plaintiff bear the obligation to return the lease deposit against D. Thus, they are jointly and severally liable to pay 24,121,643 won and delay damages to the Plaintiff, who received the instant claim attachment and collection order.

B. In a lawsuit for the amount of collection, the existence of the claim under collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). We examine the following. D’s claim for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendants, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the amount, and if so, there is no evidence as to the amount. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim on the premise that D’s claim for the return of the lease deposit exists against the Defendants is without merit, without any need to further examine.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.