1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Basic Facts

On June 3, 2010, the Plaintiff received a collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) from the Daegu District Court Cheongdo-gun District Court 2010 tea54 against C (hereinafter “C”) to the Plaintiff, the obligor C, the garnishee, the Defendant, and the claim amount of KRW 29,238,292 on June 3, 2010, based on the payment order in the wage claim case of the Daegu District Court 2010Kado-Gun Court 2015 against C (hereinafter “C”).

The collection order of this case was served on June 8, 2010 to the defendant.

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff defendant, claiming the purport of Gap evidence 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings, is obligated to pay the price of goods to Eul. Thus, the collection obligee, based on the collection order of this case, shall pay the claim amount of 29,238,292 won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

Since there is no goods payment claim against C, which is the subject of the collection order of this case, against the Defendant, and the existence of the Plaintiff’s wage claim against C, which is the enforcement bond, is unclear, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for collection.

The defendant is not able to respond to the claim of this case because he bears damages due to the failure to perform the contract for the supply of goods to other companies due to C's default.

Judgment

In a lawsuit for the determination of the cause of a claim, the existence of a claim for the collection of goods is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). We examine the existence of a claim for the payment of goods against the defendant C, a claim for the collection

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 3 and 4, and witness D’s testimony and pleading, the Defendant traded with C and functional health foods, etc. from 1999 to 2010, and C may recognize the existence of a claim for the price of goods equivalent to KRW 118,832,00 as of January 18, 2010.

Therefore, the above facts and the basic facts are examined.