1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. The Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order with respect to the claims owned by D against the Defendant based on a final and conclusive judgment (Seoul Southern District Court 2008Gaso280483) on the non-party C (hereinafter “D”) (Seoul Southern District Court 2008Gaso280483). In the above collection order, the Plaintiff indicated in the above collection order that “the third party obligor (Defendant) wrongfully embezzled the claims against the debtor out of the claims for the sale price of the obligor (D) and distributed the claims in excess of the amount of the lien.” The amount of the lien is equal until the creditor receives all the claims for which the judgment became final and conclusive.”

The plaintiff claims the collection amount against the defendant based on the above seizure and collection order.

However, the content of the seized claim or collection claim stated in the above collection order is liable for damages by the defendant holding the money embezzled from D, or embezzlement against D.

The purpose of D is to seize the damage claim or the claim for return of unjust enrichment or the claim for return of money in custody against the defendant, as it receives the money from the defendant or D unfairly in excess of the amount of credit.

However, in this case, the defendant, who is the third debtor, does not bear any obligation against D.

Therefore, the plaintiff is required to prove the facts that the defendant embezzled against D, or that the defendant received the distribution in excess of the amount of the claim for lien. However, even though the plaintiff does not submit any evidence to prove such facts, according to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant filed a complaint with Nonparty E and F.