1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff received from the bankruptcy trustee of South Korea, a claim for goods amounting to KRW 626,819,070 (the partial amount out of the judgment bond in the case of Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap31654) from the Seoul Central District Court to the distribution of the Southern Branch Co., Ltd. in South Korea (hereinafter referred to as “Seoul Branch”) and received notification of the transfer of the above assignment of claims on April 10, 2015.

B. On July 29, 2015, based on an executory exemplification of the judgment rendered in Seoul Central District Court 2009Gahap31654, the Plaintiff received a claim of KRW 500,000,000, among the claim for the purchase of goods against the Defendant, the claim of KRW 500,000 from the Seoul Central District Court 200,000, from among the claim for the purchase of goods against the Defendant. The Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order of the instant claim (hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”). The instant claim seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on July 31, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 6 and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s remaining landings distribution has a claim for the amount of KRW 200,000,000 against the Defendant only between July 2014 and December 2014. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 200,000 collected as the third obligor of the instant claim seizure and collection order, which is the collection obligee, as the third obligor of the instant claim seizure and collection order.

B. On the other hand, the existence of the claim for collection in a lawsuit for the collection of money is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is against the Plaintiff, the collection obligee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). The remaining evidence, including evidence A, and evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, including evidence Nos. 5 and 8, and the result of the tax information reply on the same high-income tax report by this court, and the result of the financial transaction information reply against the NHF Bank, thereby making the distribution of remaining transferred goods worth KRW 200,000 against the Defendant.