2. The plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendants is dismissed respectively.

3. Defendant 00: (a) From March 24, 2014, to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, KRW 50,000,000; and (b) thereafter, to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff

C. It shall pay 20% interest per annum from the date of full payment.

4. The plaintiff's successor's claim against the defendant Kim 00 is dismissed.

5. Of the total litigation cost, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendants is the Plaintiff’s Intervenor and the Defendant.

The part arising between U.S. and U.S. 00, between the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff and the Defendant Kim 00

The part arising therefrom shall be borne by the succeeding intervenor respectively.

6. Paragraph 3 can be provisionally executed.

A. The plaintiff

The plaintiff shall pay each of the above amounts of KRW 50,000,000, and the amount of KRW 30,000,000 as well as KRW 20% per annum from the day following the day of delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

B. The Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff

The Plaintiff’s Intervenor shall pay to the Intervenor the amount of KRW 50,000,000, and the amount of KRW 30,000,000 as well as KRW 20% per annum from March 24, 2014 to the day of full payment (the Plaintiff’s Intervenor succeeded at the trial).

2. Purport of appeal

Each part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the costs falling under each of the revocation parts shall be revoked.

The intentional claim against the Defendants is dismissed, respectively.

A. The plaintiff on February 5, 2008 and May 1, 2009 to Defendant U.S. 00, and Defendant Kim 00.

30 million won was each lent.

B. After December 22, 2011, the Plaintiff repaid each of the above loans to the Defendants by December 31, 2011.

each of the above content-certified mail urged to serve as a content-certified mail, and each of the above content-certified mail shall be free.

It is difficult to serve the defendants with each other.

C. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor 10,381,147,260 won in arrears of the plaintiff during the lawsuit of this case

For the purpose of preserving and preserving a claim, the Defendants were the garnishee, and the Plaintiff’s Defendants were the garnishee.

Each loan claim was seized, and on September 1, 2014, the plaintiff's notification of seizure of the above claim and the defendants' notification.

The request for collection of each of the loans of this case reaches the Defendants respectively.

Facts that there is no dispute over recognition, Gap evidence 1, 2, Byung evidence 1 through 3 (including each number)

Each entry, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff has a claim for delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 24, 2012 to the date following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff, which is the day after the expiration of a considerable period from the time when the Plaintiff urged the Defendants to repay each of the above loans.

B. Meanwhile, the effect of the seizure of claims under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act is limited to creditors and obligations of the seized claims.

(1) prohibit any act of disposal, such as repayment, collection, etc., in respect of claims against the delinquent

Since a new collection can be made, the garnishee is liable to the delinquent in respect of the seized claim.

No performance can be made, and it can only be made to the country that is a collection right holder (Supreme Court Decision 199 May 14, 199).

See Supreme Court Decision 99Da3686, etc., 99Da3686, etc., and when there exists a seizure and collection order, the garnishee.

Action for performance may be brought only by the collection obligee, and the obligor shall file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

A party to a lawsuit shall be disqualified (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888, Apr. 11, 2000).

§ 6).

C. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the collection right holder under Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act, is obligated to pay 20% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 24, 2014 to the date of delivery of the Plaintiff’s complaint against the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, the Defendant U.S. 00, the Defendant Kim 00, the Defendant Kim 300,000, and each of the above money, as the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor seeks, as the date of service of the Plaintiff’s complaint against this case, to pay 20% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from March 24, 2014. Upon the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s

3. The defendants' defense, etc.

A. Determination as to the defendant U20's defense of performance

Defendant U.S. 00 claimed that the Plaintiff repaid the full amount of the above loan on March 19, 2008 after borrowing KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Thus, Defendant U.S. 00’s assertion of payment is without merit.

B. Determination as to the defendants' defense of set-off

(1) The defendants' assertion of set-off against the plaintiff in tort claim against the plaintiff

㈎ 주장

1) The Plaintiff established 00 tech Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “former 00 tech”) and held the shares for the purpose of software development and sale. However, around 2006, the Defendant U20 entered into a share transfer agreement with the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 200 million to the Plaintiff and receive KRW 3,000 shares from the Plaintiff. The Defendant Kim 00 concluded a share transfer agreement with the terms that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff and receive KRW 700 shares from the Plaintiff.

2) On November 9, 2007, the Plaintiff: (a) partially divided the former 00 et al. and established d00 et al. (hereinafter “new 00 et al”); (b) changed the trade name of the former 00 et al. into d00 et al. (hereinafter “d.00”); and (c) transferred all the above 00 shares to the Plaintiff’s ownership.

3) On December 4, 2007, the Plaintiff entered into an asset acquisition agreement with 39,500,270,700 won (315,150 won per share price x 125,338 shares) of the Plaintiff to transfer all of the above 00 shares owned by the Plaintiff to the 00 Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as '0 Electronic Co., Ltd.'). The Plaintiff purchased 00 shares with the above 00 shares issued, and held 7.6% of new 00 shares with the 11.7% of new 0 shares, and the Plaintiff sold 00 shares with the 00 electronic shares, and thereafter, the Plaintiff purchased part of 00 shares from the Plaintiff, and held 13.5% of new 0 shares with the 13.5% of the 00 electronic shares issued as at now.

4) As above, the Plaintiff had a duty to transfer 3,00 shares and 700 shares to Defendant U20 according to the former stock transfer contract with Defendant U20 and 3,000 shares (3,150 shares x 700 shares x 3,00 shares x 3,00 shares x 3,00 shares x 3,00 shares x 70 shares) and damages equivalent to the shares price of the former 00 shares that the Defendants could have held by the Defendants by selling 00 shares of the former 00 shares, without Defendant’s consent. As such, the Plaintiff has a duty to pay to Defendant U20 KRW 220,605,00 (315,150 shares x 700 shares x 700 shares) and damages damages damages from each of the above amounts against the Defendants’ respective damages claims against the Plaintiff. The Defendants are offset against each of the above damages claims against the Defendants.

㈏ 판단

In light of the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the Defendants’ assertion that the Defendants had the above damage claim against the Plaintiff, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the purport of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, and 4 as to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendants filed a complaint with an investigative agency against the Plaintiff by asserting that the Plaintiff had the above damage claim against the Defendants (Seoul Central District Prosecutors’ Office No. 2011, No. 1011, No. 101815), and that there was no further need to acknowledge the Defendants’ damages claim against the Defendants on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence as to the above facts, and that there was no further error in finding the Defendants’ damages claim against the Defendants in the process of selling the above No. 3-1, No. 3-2, and No. 4, the Defendants’ claim against the Plaintiff. 201, on the ground that there was no further need to acknowledge the Defendants’ claim against the Defendants for damages claim against the Defendants.

Shes argument of set-off with separate loan claims of Defendant Kim 00

㈎ 주장

Defendant Kim 00 separately lent to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 4 million on August 30, 2006, and KRW 60 million on August 31, 2006, and the remainder of KRW 50 million was not repaid by the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant Kim 1 asserts that the Plaintiff’s loan claim against Defendant Kim 00 against the remainder of KRW 50 million was set off against an equal amount.

㈏ 판단

Therefore, in light of the purport of the entire argument in the statement of No. 3, the above evidence and evidence as well as evidence as mentioned above, Defendant Kim 00 delivered to the plaintiff ① 20 million won on April 5, 2006, ② 10.2 million won on May 5, 2006, ③ 40 million on August 30, 2006, ④ 60 million won on August 31, 2006, ④ the above amount was delivered to the plaintiff, ② the above amount was the investment amount of KRW 00,000,000,000,000 won. ④ The plaintiff paid the above amount to the defendant Kim 00,000,000 won on August 31, 2006, ③ the above amount was the investment amount of KRW 30,000,000,000 for each of the above claims against the defendant Kim 0,000,000 won on September 5, 2007.

However, Defendant Kim Young-young's loan claim amounting to KRW 50 million against the Plaintiff among the above bonds is awarded to the Plaintiff, and it is offset against the Plaintiff's loan claim amounting to KRW 30 million against Defendant Kim Young-chul. Thus, on August 11, 2014, the Defendants' intent of offset against the Defendant's claim amounting to KRW 30 million against Defendant Kim Young-il, which is the offset date by the Plaintiff's statement at the date of pleading against the Plaintiff on August 1, 2014, the set-off date, around May 1, 2009, the lease amounting to KRW 30 million against the Plaintiff Kim Young-il, which is the offset date. The above set-off claim amounting to KRW 50 million against the Plaintiff of KRW 1,00,000 against the Plaintiff of KRW 10,000,000, is extinguished on an equal basis with the amount of claim amount of KRW 50 million against the Plaintiff of this case, and the above set-off by Defendant Kim Young-soo is no longer sustainable.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case against the defendants shall be dismissed as unlawful.

F. The judgment of the first instance court is unfair in conclusion, and thus, the judgment of the first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's avoid.

Defendant 00 is obligated to pay 50 million won and 20% per annum to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff who participated in the trial at the court, and Defendant 00 is obligated to pay 50 million won and 50% per annum from March 24, 2014 to the date of full payment. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 00 is justified, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant 100 is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.