1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was a juristic person established for the purpose of purchasing and recovering non-performing loans, and the Industrial Bank of Korea transferred all over KRW 138,320,82, out of the loans extended by the Bank to Nonparty C.

B. The Plaintiff received an order for the payment of the acquisition money from the Nonparty from the Gwangju District Court 2017 tea18296, and the payment order became final and conclusive on February 6, 2018.

C. The Defendant is operating a restaurant with the name of “E” in the name of Nonparty’s spouse, “E” from the area D, and the first floor of Cheongju-si.

At the time of the Plaintiff’s filing of the instant order for the payment of the transfer money, the Nonparty was operating a restaurant with the name “F” at the same place. However, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure of the Nonparty’s credit card sales amount with the Nonparty as the debtor and the card company as the garnishee, and filed an application for provisional seizure of the claim with the Gwangju District Court on January 31, 2018. On January 4, 2018, the provisional seizure order was issued and served on the Nonparty on January 31, 2018.

E. On February 21, 2018, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order, and completed the report by collecting KRW 4,409,561 from the credit card companies, which received a seizure and collection order, to transfer the provisional seizure of 2018TT 5130 from the original seizure.

F. However, the Defendant opened “E” on January 15, 2018 at a restaurant operated by the Nonparty, and the Nonparty closed down “F” on February 1, 2018.

[Grounds for recognition] Evidence Nos. 1 through 5-1, 2, 3, 8, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Appropriateness of the cause of the claim;

A. The gist of the claim is that the Defendant, rather than a simple family settlement book, provided the Nonparty’s business name intentionally to the Nonparty to assist the Nonparty’s business that was difficult for a long time as a partner of the Nonparty, thereby making it difficult for the Nonparty to enforce compulsory execution against the Nonparty.

As such, the Defendant, in collusion with the Nonparty, is in the name of the Defendant from January 15, 2018, the sales claim acquired through “F.”