1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The defendant.

1. On July 11, 2012, the Plaintiff received a claim amounting to KRW 72,158,628 of the amount of the claim against the Defendant under B with the title of execution against the payment order finalized against B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”), and issued a seizure and collection order (No. 2013TTTT8781, May 27, 2013, hereinafter “the instant collection order”). The instant collection order was served on the Defendant on May 28, 2013.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. As to the claim of the parties against the Defendant based on the collection order of this case, the Defendant asserted for the payment of KRW 72,158,628 to the Defendant, and the delayed payment damages therefor, the Defendant asserted that the claim against the Defendant, who is the subject of the collection claim, cannot be complied with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. Determination 1) The order of seizure and collection against the claim becomes effective within the extent of the claim that has become the subject of the order, and the existence of the claim to be collected in the collection deposit lawsuit bears the burden of proof for the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da32214, Oct. 25, 2012; 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007); and C’s testimony by the witness of the first instance trial, according to the following: (a) on April 15, 2013, B’s representative director D transferred to the plaintiff the claim equivalent to KRW 20 million against the defendant; (b) around May 20, 2013, C, an employee of the defendant, was explained to the effect that “the above transaction partner’s claim was divided by transaction partner’s director,” and (c) the above transaction partner’s claim was divided by transaction partner’s column 1595,598.

3) However, evidence Nos. 5, Nos. 1, 2 through 6, and 8 (and serial number).