1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an order to pay the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 73,170,00 to KRW 73,170,000 and KRW 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the original copy of the payment order to the obligee, against the Plaintiff, which guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay the Plaintiff. The above payment order became final and conclusive on November 21, 2013.

B. On January 3, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter in this case, the instant seizure and collection order) on the benefit exceeding KRW 1,50,000 pursuant to Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, among the benefits paid monthly by C, for which C applied for the seizure and collection order as the title of execution of the said payment order, which was the Seoul Central District Court 2013TTT No. 42433, Jan. 8, 2014. The instant seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on January 8, 2014.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 5, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The collection order of the Plaintiff’s assertion was lawfully served on the Defendant. Since C is clear that the Defendant’s employee is, the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 75,294,936 and delay damages.

B. In light of the judgment, the creditor acquires the right of the debtor to directly collect the claim against the third debtor according to the collection order. Thus, if the third debtor denies the existence of the claim subject to collection, the creditor must prove it.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that C holds a benefit claim against the defendant only with each of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 submitted by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.