1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2, 2011, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2000Kahap45414) with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim, such as the benefit, etc. that B holds against D, the Consolidated architect, Inc. (hereinafter “the Consolidated architect”) based on the judgment against B (Seoul Central District Court 200Gahap45414).

The instant collection order was served on March 7, 201, the garnishee, the debtor, on March 7, 201.

B. On April 23, 2010, the Defendant issued a claim attachment and assignment order (Seoul Eastern District Court 2010TF 6602, hereinafter “instant assignment order”) with respect to the claim, such as the benefit, etc. that B owns against B based on a promissory note No. 100 million won No. 1006 against B.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 3 (including virtual number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of the claim is that the defendant filed an application for the entire order of this case immediately after he joined the forest architectural office B, and that the defendant raised an objection against the distribution on behalf of the plaintiff who is the father D in the distribution procedure of the auction case of the Seoul District Court C public auction case on behalf of the plaintiff Eul who is the mother D, and that the

It seems that the F apartment 213 Dong 112, which appears to be owned by the defendant, was set up a large number of collateral mortgages, and the defendant seems to have no sufficient ability to lend a large amount of KRW 100 million to B.

B was anticipated to have a compulsory execution on a claim, such as one’s own salary, and the defendant was issued with a false processed bond and the defendant was already issued with a false processed bond, and the defendant had already received a reasonable amount according to the assignment order.

The plaintiff is a monetary claimant against B, and the defendant has already been subject to the assignment order of this case in accordance with the principle of subrogation right of the creditor.