1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the following facts: evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18, and the purport of the whole pleadings:

On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order (Seoul Northern District Court 2013 tea 2160 Check money case; hereinafter “instant payment order”) with B as the debtor and with C (hereinafter “C”) to pay KRW 674 million per share order issued by C (hereinafter “C”), and upon receipt of an order of correction from the above court to specify whether the debtor is B or C, the Plaintiff specified C as the debtor on May 2, 2013 when submitting a corporate register with respect to C.

B. However, C received a decision on commencing the rehabilitation procedure on August 31, 2012 (the Daejeon District Court 2012 Ma21 Debtor Rehabilitation Act) and appointed B and D as joint managers, and such details are entered in the corporate register. As such, the instant payment order was served on May 10, 2013 on the part of the debtor, rather than C, by stating “B and D co-managers of the rehabilitation corporation C,” and was finalized on the 25th of the same month.

C. After that, on July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for the issuance of an order of seizure and assignment of claims by entering the claim in the purchase price claim held by the debtor C and C as the purchase price claim held by the Defendant, and on July 22, 2013, the Plaintiff received the assignment order of claims and assignment order ( Daejeon District Court Decision 2013TTT5249, hereinafter “instant assignment order”). The assignment order of this case was served on the Defendant on July 22, 2013, and became final and conclusive on November 26, 2013.

On the other hand, C was decided to discontinue the rehabilitation procedures on April 25, 2013 and the decision became final and conclusive on May 9, 2013, and the contents were entered in the corporate register on May 13, 2013.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion is based on the payment order of this case.