1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C (hereinafter “C”) to file a claim for the agreed amount, and the Plaintiff has a claim with respect to the instant company at the rate of 15% per annum from August 16, 2017 to May 4, 2017 with respect to KRW 90 million and the amount of KRW 40 million, which became final and conclusive by the judgment of Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2017Da4608 Decided November 16, 2017 (hereinafter “instant claim”). The amount of KRW 50 million per annum from August 21, 2016 to May 4, 2017; and the amount of KRW 15% per annum from May 5, 2017 to the date of full payment; and the amount of KRW 50 million per annum from May 5, 2017 to the date of full payment (hereinafter “instant claim”).

B. The Plaintiff was issued a collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) on September 14, 2018, with respect to the instant claim against the Defendant, “an amount equivalent to KRW 109,526,027, out of the claim amount for administrative services related to corporate rental housing, 15 parcels of land D in the original city, the amount equivalent to KRW 109,526,027,” which C had against the Defendant. The order was served on the Defendant on September 14, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, the fact that it was good, the entry of Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) The plaintiff's assertion C is liable to pay the plaintiff, who is the creditor of the collection order, the collection amount of KRW 109,526,027, and the delay damages therefrom, since the plaintiff's assertion C is a claim for the administrative service agency expenses to be paid by the defendant.

Even according to the "Business Agreement and Fund Management Agency Contract" entered into between the Defendant’s argument and the Defendant, C, etc., C’s claim for service agency costs against the Defendant was not present, so there is no claim for collection claimed by the Plaintiff.

B. In a judgment collection lawsuit, the existence of the claim to be collected is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is borne by the plaintiff.

Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175 Decided January 11, 2007