1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (tentative name) filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Southern District Court 2019Ga group 2414666 against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant association”). On December 11, 2019, the said court rendered a judgment that “the instant association shall pay to the Plaintiff 62,00,000 won per annum from July 1, 2019 to August 1, 2019, and the amount calculated at the respective rate of 12% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on January 22, 2020.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff received a collection order “the claim and seizure order to transfer the provisional seizure to the seizure at issue,” which had been issued by the Seoul Southern District Court No. 2020, and had been served on the Defendant by designating the debtor as the title of enforcement of the above final judgment as the title of enforcement, and the third party as the Defendant.” This was served on the Defendant around that time.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4 (including branch numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. 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). However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff did not submit any evidence as to the existence of the claim under collection, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim under this case is difficult to accept.

3. Conclusion against the Plaintiff