1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2, 2012, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming a loan against A as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Da30223, the Plaintiff was sentenced to the judgment that “A shall pay to the Plaintiff 14,678,617 won, and 10,703,245 won per annum 18% per annum from February 15, 2012 to the date of full payment, 3,085, and 405 won per annum 27.4% per annum from February 15, 2012 to the date of full payment.”

B. On January 20, 2014, the Plaintiff, by deeming the Defendant as the garnishee by the above judgment, was determined to seize the wage claim and retirement allowance claim against the Defendant and collection order against the Defendant under Sung-nam District Court 2014TT745. The said decision was served on the Defendant on January 23, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that since the above A is in office of the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the collection amount to the plaintiff according to the above seizure and collection order.

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). In light of the following, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the above A was an employee of the Defendant at the time when the above order of seizure and collection was served on the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the entire pleadings, A can only be recognized as the fact that he/she retired from the defendant on November 3, 2012 and completed all of the liquidation of money and valuables.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.