1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On February 2012, the summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion B and the Construction Industry Development Co., Ltd. concluded a contract with the Defendant to purchase scrap metal and other materials (hereinafter “instant scrap”) generated after the removal of buildings by Mapo-gu Seoul building (hereinafter “instant scrap”), and paid KRW 100 million as down payment to the Defendant. On May 9, 2012, B acquired the right to the said sales contract from the Construction Industry Development Co., Ltd. after which he/she acquired the right from the Defendant and May 11, 2012, agreed to cancel the said sales contract and receive KRW 100 million as down payment from the proceeds disposed of the instant scrap.

Meanwhile, on October 18, 2012, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment of Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan105602 against B, the Plaintiff received the attachment and collection order of the claim that the debtor B and the third debtor transfer the provisional attachment to the provisional attachment as the defendant, the claim amount of KRW 145,219,038 from the Seoul Central District Court 201, October 22, 2012. The above collection order was served on the Defendant on October 22, 2012.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as the collection obligee B the amount of KRW 100 million to be returned to B following the cancellation of the above sales contract.

B. The existence of a claim for collection in a lawsuit for determination is a requisite fact and must be asserted and proved by the Plaintiff, the creditor of the claim (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007), evidence No. 3, evidence No. 8-1 and No. 2, and witness B’s testimony and the whole purport of oral argument as follows: ① entered into a contract with the Defendant to sell the instant scrap for 400 million won to D on March 13, 2012 after the above sales contract with the Defendant, and immediately thereafter, it appears that Gyeonggi ethyl Co., Ltd would have taken over the status of purchaser of the instant scrap of D’s instant scrap by a third party agreement with the Defendant; ② thereafter, Gyeonggi ethyl Co., Ltd.’s account or B’s designation.