1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 57,020,507 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from November 24, 2016 to the date of full payment.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued an executory exemplification of the judgment (this Court 2014Da23377) with respect to the Pampling Industry (hereinafter “Pampling Industry”). On August 11, 2016, the Plaintiff issued an order of seizure and collection (this Court 2016Da53579, hereinafter “the instant collection order”) with respect to the garnishee’s obligation to return the seized claim as the Defendant, the third obligor’s claim amount to KRW 57,020,50, and the obligor’s obligation to return the seized claim to the third obligor.

B. The Defendant received the instant collection order on August 17, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 3 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 57,020,507 won and damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from November 24, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint, to the day of full payment, barring special circumstances.

The defendant asserts that the plaintiff cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim because the lawsuit between the plaintiff and the farm industry is pending in the Supreme Court. However, the non-existence or extinction of the execution claim does not constitute a ground for the third debtor to refuse the repayment of the debt by asserting it as a defense in the lawsuit of collection in the claim objection (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da34012, Nov. 11, 1994). The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting the plaintiff's claim.