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 March 27, 2013, the Plaintiff is a non-party D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “non-party D”) company.

The Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Kadan2851 (Seoul Eastern District Court 2013Kadan2851), which is a non-party company's 1 Seoul Eastern District Court 201 (hereinafter referred to as a "non-party company's

this case's construction price claim(hereinafter referred to as "construction price claim of this case").

On April 3, 2013, the decision of citing the provisional attachment was served on the non-party partnership, a garnishee.

B. On March 12, 2013, the Defendant applied for a payment order seeking the return of loan against Nonparty Company as Seoul Eastern District Court 2013 tea1986, and the payment order of the said court was finalized at that time. On April 26, 2013, based on the original copy of the above payment order, the Defendant applied for a seizure and collection order for the instant construction price claim under Seoul East Eastern District Court 2013TTT7 and served the non-party partnership, the garnishee on May 27, 2013.

C. The Seoul Eastern District Court deposited the instant construction cost on June 24, 2014, stating that: (a) the Plaintiff was the first provisional attachment authority in the distribution procedure in C, 35,385,771 won as the first provisional attachment authority; and (b) the Defendant, as the first collection authority, distributed each of the KRW 63,683,490 as the first collection authority, below the distribution schedule in the instant case.

A) The Plaintiff prepared the instant lawsuit on June 27, 2014, which was present on the date of the said distribution, and raised an objection to the whole amount of the said dividend to the Defendant. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on June 27, 2014, which was within one week thereafter. [The grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, the entries in Gap’s 1, 2, and Eul’s 6 through 10 (including each number), and the purport of the entire pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion can not be said to have continuously lent money to the non-party company even though the defendant was the spouse E, the representative director of the non-party company, and the defendant, the non-party company, who did not have any income, was divorced.