1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C for a loan claim with the Changwon District Court Decision 2012Gau28685, which was decided on October 30, 2012, and the said decision was finalized around that time.

B. On the premise that, for the payment of the above loan claim against C, the Changwon District Court 2012Kadan3980, which was the Seoul District Court 2012Kadan3980, and C leased from the Defendant the D 3rd floor in Kimhae-si (hereinafter “instant building”), the Plaintiff obtained a claim amounting to KRW 20,000,000 as to the lease deposit claim against C (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment order”), and the said decision was served on September 24, 2012 to the Defendant, the garnishee.

C. After the decision on performance recommendation became final and conclusive, the Plaintiff received a provisional attachment of KRW 20,00,000 from the Changwon District Court Decision 2014TTTT 6300, stating that “The provisional attachment of KRW 20,000, out of the above lease deposit returned by the decision on the provisional attachment of this case, shall be transferred to the original attachment, and the remainder of KRW 11,783,478, based on the original copy of the decision on performance recommendation shall be seized out of the above lease deposit deposit,” and the said decision was served on April 17, 2015 on the Defendant, who is the garnishee.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 4 through 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant is entitled to pay KRW 26,906,848 as the collection money according to the collection order of this case.

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

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007). According to the health care unit and evidence No. 6, C’s moving-in report of the instant building is deemed to have been true, but solely on the above circumstance, C’s lessee who leased the instant building from the Defendant or the Defendant’s claim amount is reasonable.