1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Korea Standards Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Standards Bank”) applied for a payment order against A with respect to the payment of loans under Sungwon District Court Branch 201 Primary 9167, Sungnam Branch, Sungwon District Court, and the said payment order was served on A on February 20, 2012, and became final and conclusive around that time.

B. The foregoing loan claims were transferred from the Korea Agency in a savings bank to the management of non-performing non-performing assets (hereinafter “non-performing non-performing assets management”), and were transferred again to the Plaintiff on October 12, 2015. On October 28, 2015, the Plaintiff, who was delegated from the management of the existing non-performing assets, notified A of the transfer of claims.

C. After being granted the succeeding execution clause on the above payment order that the Plaintiff became final and conclusive, on May 16, 2016, A issued a seizure and collection order against KRW 19,148,464, out of the benefit and retirement allowance claims (However, excluded from the amount prohibited from seizure under the Civil Execution Act; hereinafter “instant claim”) that A owns against the Defendant by the court.

(The Jeju District Court 2016 Other 20787, hereinafter referred to as "the seizure and collection order of this case") d.

The instant order of seizure and collection was served on May 19, 2016 on the Defendant.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 4 through 6 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the collection amount of KRW 19,148,464 to the plaintiff, as the collection and collection order of this case was served on the defendant.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that, since A had worked until September 20, 2010 for the defendant and had been paid both wages and retirement allowances while retired, the defendant cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because there is no seized claim.

B. At the time of service of the seizure and collection order of the instant case to the Defendant, A’s benefits and retirement allowances to the Defendant.