1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Suwon District Court No. 2007Gahap8634 against the Plaintiff. On November 29, 2007, the said court rendered a judgment that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 10 million won and the amount equivalent to 5% per annum from May 23, 2007 to November 29, 2007, and 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.”

The above judgment was finalized on December 28, 2007.

B. On January 8, 2016, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order under the Suwon District Court 2015TT25145, with respect to the wage claim exceeding KRW 1.5 million per month against the Defendant of the Defendant as the claim claim pursuant to the above final judgment, and the said order was served on the Defendant around that time.

The indication of "a claim to be seized" stated in the above seizure and collection order shall be as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, who is the third debtor, is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 263,483,605 according to the above order of seizure and collection and delay damages.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that C's benefits are less than KRW 1.5 million per month, so it cannot respond to the plaintiff's request.

B. In a judgment of collection amount lawsuit, the existence of the claim subject to collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007, etc.). Meanwhile, according to Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, where a wage claim falls short of KRW 1.5 million per month, the above claim constitutes a claim prohibiting seizure, and the fact that a claim subject to collection does not constitute a claim prohibiting seizure should be proved by the Plaintiff.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da40476, Jun. 11, 2015). There is no evidence to acknowledge that C’s wage claim against the Defendant exceeds KRW 1.5 million per month, and thus, is ultimately collected.