1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) with respect to the claim amounting to KRW 598,783,085 as the Seoul Central District Court 2014TT No. 37170 against the Defendant, as a creditor under the Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap532918 (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap 532918), and the instant collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, on January 6, 2015.

With respect to the portion of KRW 80,000,000 among the claims subject to seizure of this case, the Plaintiff received the decision of provisional seizure of claims (Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan80002), and the decision of provisional seizure was served on October 16, 2013 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 8, 9, and 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the existence of the claim against seizure of this case

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant, as the garnishee of the collection order of this case, is obligated to pay 110,000,000 won to the plaintiff, who is the creditor, within the scope of the amount claimed under the collection order of this case, and delay damages therefor.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed, since B did not have wage claim of at least KRW 1,500,000 per month which may be seized under the Civil Execution Act against the Defendant before the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment and the collection order of this case was served to the Defendant.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in each statement of Eul evidence Nos. 2 through 22 (including serial serial numbers), Article 46 of the articles of incorporation of the defendant company provides that "the remuneration or retirement allowances of officers shall be determined by the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders", and the third period of the defendant company held on June 14, 2013, which was held on June 14, 2013.