1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Based on the payment order in the transfer payment case of D, Gwangju District Court 2015Hu10398, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order of D’s benefit claim against D with the same court 2016TTT 33735, and the above court rendered a decision of acceptance on the above application on August 1, 2016. The above decision was delivered to the Plaintiff around that time.

B. After that, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the claim for the collection of the amount under the above collection order with the Gwangju District Court 2019 Ghana52863, and the Plaintiff did not submit any assertion or evidence despite having received the Defendant’s written complaint on April 24, 2019. Accordingly, the above court rendered a judgment with the content that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 57,778,925 won and 20,016,540 won from April 12, 2019 to April 24, 2019; 15% per annum from the following following day to May 31, 2019; and 12% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant judgment”).

C. The foregoing judgment was served on the Plaintiff on July 26, 2019, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on August 10, 2019, as the Plaintiff did not file an appeal against the said judgment within the appeal period.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. D’s benefits, which were subject to seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff by the Defendant asserted by the Plaintiff, constitute prohibited seizure claim under Article 195 subparag. 3 of the Civil Execution Act, because they are merely the amount less than 1.5 million won per month, excluding taxes and public charges.

As long as the seizure itself is null and void under the law, seizure and collection order based on such seizure and collection order shall be based on the existence of invalid seizure claims, and the contents of the judgment in this case shall be contrary to the substantive legal relationship and shall be subject to that judgment.