1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a claim for retirement allowance against C, etc. as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012 Ghana80204, and received a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, “C shall pay KRW 14,107,475 to the Plaintiff and its delay damages.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on October 23, 2013.

B. On October 21, 2014, the Plaintiff received the claim amounting to KRW 19,09,953 by using the claim amount, such as salary, allowance, retirement allowance, etc. (e.g., wage, retirement allowance, etc.) that C owns against the Defendant as the claim subject to seizure, based on the payment claim, based on the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2014TTT 20672, which was based on the above final judgment, and issued a seizure and collection order. The above claim seizure and collection order were served on the Defendant on October 24, 201

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment that C received a seizure and collection order as to KRW 19,09,953 ( principal KRW 14,107,475 and interest accrued during the period from December 26, 2012) among the claims owed by C against the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 14,107,475 and delay damages therefrom.

In a case where there is a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, this is limited to the right of the debtor to collect the monetary claim against the third debtor in the compulsory execution procedure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da73490, Mar. 9, 2001). Since the existence of the monetary claim against the third debtor is not confirmed, the collection creditor is liable to prove that there is the monetary claim against the third debtor in the claim for the collection amount.

However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the existence of claims, such as the payment of wages to the defendant who is the third debtor of C, which is the debtor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, which is an employee of E operated by the representative director D of the defendant, and C currently is the defendant's auditor.