The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff holds a claim against C with an executory exemplification of a fair deed, No. 117, 2019, prepared by a notary public at the D office.

B. On November 13, 2019, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order of KRW 80,253,800, out of the amount invested by C against the Defendant, and filed an application for the seizure and collection order of KRW 2019 with the Ulsan District Court 2019, and the above court issued the seizure and collection order of the instant claim (hereinafter “instant claim”) on November 13, 2019. The seizure and collection order of the instant claim was served to the Defendant around that time.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that, in order to preserve the claim against C, the Plaintiff: (a) was issued a seizure and collection order of the instant claim against the Defendant with the Defendant as the third debt; and (b) accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 80,253,800 based on the seizure and collection order of the instant claim and the delayed damages therefrom.

B. In light of the judgment, the existence of a debt to be collected in a gold lawsuit is not sufficient to acknowledge the existence of a debt to be collected against the defendant (the fact that the debt to be collected was secured by the plaintiff's assertion against the defendant in this case) solely on the basis of the facts of the existence of the debt to be collected, and there is no other evidence to support this, and thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.