1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. On February 28, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order of the claim No. 2014TT 3262 by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2013 tea 5726 against the Defendant of Lee Young-young as the execution bond for the payment order issued by the Seoul Eastern District Court 2013 tea 5726 against the Defendant of Lee Young-young, which seized and collected the claim for construction price against the Defendant of Lee Young-young. The said order was served on the Defendant on March 5, 2014.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute]

2. The Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on December 30, 2013, 2013, the Defendant submitted to the Defendant a direct statement of non-performance that the Defendant would have been aware of the Plaintiff’s claim itself; and (b) on the ground that the Defendant continued the construction by making the appearance that the Defendant would directly employ B, an employee of No. A, the employees of No. 200, and thereby avoided the Plaintiff’s attachment order; (c) the Plaintiff still has a claim for the construction cost of No. 200; and (d) in accordance with the construction cost statement (Evidence No. 4) that the Defendant paid No. 500,000,000,000,000,000 won were unfairly deducted from the construction cost of No. 200,000,000 won were still avoided; and (d) the Defendant still has a claim for the construction cost of No. 50,000,000 won.

The burden of proof for the existence and scope of the claims seized in a lawsuit for the collection of seizure is against the creditor for the collection of seizure, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the existence of the claims seized by the plaintiff's assertion, as well as (i) before the plaintiff's seizure and collection order exists.