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. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a payment order against A with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015 teas 277316, and received a payment order from the said court that “the Plaintiff shall pay the loan amounting to KRW 4,935,639 and the delay damages therefrom.”

B. On May 17, 2016, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order under the Changwon District Court 2016TTT No. 201520 on May 17, 2016, with respect to a claim amounting to a claim amounting to the above final payment order, which exceeds KRW 1.5 million per month against the Defendant. The said order was served on the Defendant on May 19, 2016.

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

【Reasons for Recognition】 The descriptions of Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant, who is the third debtor, is liable to pay the collection amount of KRW 5,373,698 to the plaintiff according to the above order of seizure and collection.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since A's benefit does not exceed 1.5 million won per month, A's claim cannot be complied with.

B. In a judgment collection lawsuit, the existence of a claim for collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). Meanwhile, according to Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, in a case of a wage claim of which 1/2 of the balance, excluding taxes and public charges, out of the wage, is not more than 1.5 million won, it constitutes a claim to prohibit seizure, and ultimately, the Plaintiff, the collection obligee, who is the collection obligee, shall prove that A is receiving wages exceeding 1.5 million won, excluding taxes and public charges every month from the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Accordingly,

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair as it is concluded differently.