The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. In the lawsuit for construction cost claim between Changwon District Court C (hereinafter “C”) and D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), the conciliation was concluded on August 31, 2018, stating that “D shall pay KRW 56,500,000 to C Co., Ltd. by October 30, 2018” (hereinafter “instant conciliation”). Meanwhile, the Plaintiff was the execution bond of the instant conciliation-related claim, and the Plaintiff received the instant order for the collection and seizure of KRW 16,50,000 from the Changwon District Court Decision 2019, Jun. 11, 2019 to the Defendant, 4178, which was requested by D while carrying on the business of Kim Il-si, Kim Jong-si Housing District Co., Ltd., Ltd., which was entrusted to the Defendant, and received the instant order for the collection and seizure of KRW 16,00,000 from the bonds and the instant loan to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant order for collection and seizure”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap 2-5 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments;

A. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff, who was the successor to the whole claim related to the instant conciliation, the collection amount of KRW 61,608,219 and delayed damages by means of the seizure and collection order of the instant claim.

B. Since five persons, such as F, etc. have already been subject to seizure and collection for the purpose of preserving wage claims before the Plaintiff’s inheritance (transfer of claims), the Plaintiff’s succession (transfer of claims) is null and void.

This part of the Defendant’s assertion argues the validity of the seizure and collection order of the instant claim, and is unclear whether the Plaintiff asserts the absence of the Plaintiff’s execution claim. However, the Defendant’s assertion that “the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the Plaintiff’s claim is null and void, so the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the claim does not exist in itself.” (see the second page of the Answer)

However, the non-existence or extinction of the enforcement bond is the one of the enforcement obligation.