1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. On July 24, 2013, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment order for the return of the lease deposit against the Defendant (C’s mother) at the Jeonjin-gu Seoul District Court Decision 2013Kadan2656, the Jeon-gu Seoul District Court (C’s mother). On February 2, 2015, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional attachment and collection order for the transfer of the provisional attachment to the main attachment (hereinafter “instant collection order”). The order was served on the Defendant around that time.

[Ground of recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 6, and 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion holds the claim against C for the payment order of 48,789,0141, against C, and the Defendant is entitled to pay the above money and the damages for delay based on the collection order of this case.

B. The existence of the claim to be collected is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). According to the evidence Nos. 3 through 5, the defendant C, who is the child of the defendant, has filed a move-in report on the above apartment owned by the defendant from April 3, 2009 to July 16, 2013, but it is not sufficient to recognize that C has the right to return the lease deposit against the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion premised on the existence of the claim to return the lease deposit against the defendant, which is the claim to be collected in the collection order of this case, cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed for reasons.