1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

1. Basic facts

A. On Nov. 30, 2007, the Defendant, on Nov. 30, 2007, issued a provisional seizure order (hereinafter “provisional seizure of claim”) by the Daegu District Court 2007Kadan17696, on the lease deposit claim amounting to KRW 30 million paid by the Plaintiff for the lease of approximately 50 square meters (hereinafter “instant building”) from the 4 North-gu Northern District Court, Daegu District Court 2007Kadan17696, on November 17, 2003, on the lease deposit claim amounting to KRW 50,000,000 paid by the Plaintiff to C.

B. On May 10, 2013, the Defendant filed a lawsuit seeking payment of KRW 100 million (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”) against the Plaintiff, including loans of KRW 50 million, with Suwon District Court Decision 2013Da209349 (hereinafter “instant lawsuit”).

C. On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application with the Daegu District Court 2013Kadan6366 to revoke the provisional seizure order of the instant claim, and the said court rendered a decision to revoke the provisional seizure of the instant claim on October 4, 2013 on the ground that “The fact that a lawsuit was not filed within three years after the execution of the provisional seizure order was proved, and there is a change of circumstances that cannot no longer maintain the provisional seizure order.”

[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 7-2 of evidence Nos. 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. In applying for provisional seizure against the Plaintiff’s claim, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff had the claim for loans worth KRW 50 million against the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was unfairly subject to provisional seizure against the instant claim by asserting that the Plaintiff had the claim for loans worth KRW 50 million on February 7, 2012 due to the closure of the pertinent private teaching institute on February 7, 2012, or that the Defendant could no longer receive a refund due to the closure of the said private teaching institute, or that the five-year extinctive prescription expires, and thus, the Defendant could no longer claim against the Plaintiff.