Seoul Gangnam-gu

Head of representative director**

Law Firm Governing Province, Attorney Lee Jae-won

[Defendant-Appellant] Doz. (Attorney Jin-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District

* Representative Director* *

Law Firm Jin-Name, Attorney Jin-bok

Attorney Seo-hee

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

3. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

A. The instant case asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff claimed the loan claim against the Defendant in △△△ Contact Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△△△”); (b) and (c) received the claim attachment and collection order as to the deposit claim against the Defendant in △△△△△; and (d) claimed the Defendant for the payment of KRW 1,00,000,00 and the delayed payment damages therefor within the scope of the claim claim among the deposit claims in △△△△; (b) the Defendant’s deposit claim against the Defendant in △△△△△△, as seen in the underlying facts, is the total amount of KRW 2,61,683,633,633,618,261 as an automatic claim against the Defendant, and thus, the instant deposit claim does not remain in dispute that the Plaintiff did not pay the principal and interest of KRW 3,633,718,261 as an automatic claim against the Defendant.

B. As to the above set-off defense of the defendant, the plaintiff paid the balance of the account of this case, which is the head of the Tong in △△△△, to the U.S., while maintaining the balance of the account of this case (-) in the form of a deposit account in △△△, and upon delivery of the plaintiff's claim seizure and collection order, it is re-feasible that it is not permissible to offset the plaintiff's claim for the loan to △△△, as stated in the above paragraph A, against the deposit claim of △△△△

2. Basic facts

A. 1) On November 19, 2009, the Seoul Central District Court 2008Gahap106 * * Hoho Loans, etc. filed by the Plaintiff against △△△, the following adjustment was established between the above parties.

Conciliation Provisions

1. △△ shall be paid to the Plaintiff up to December 8, 2009, KRW 1,500,000,000, and if △△△ delays the payment of the above amount, △△ shall pay the unpaid amount plus damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from December 9, 2009 to the date of full payment.

2. Provided, That where the competent supervisory authority requests the supplementation of the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the △△△, the period shall be extended to January 4, 2010, regardless of the success of the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the capital increase with respect to the above △△△△△, and 20% per annum shall be paid from January 5, 2010 to the date of full payment.

2) On March 3, 2010, the Plaintiff: (a) pursuant to the above protocol of mediation enforced by the Seoul Southern District Court 2010 Tado38 **, pursuant to the above protocol of mediation, KRW 1,564, 931,506, the Plaintiff: (b) when there are several types of deposit claims of the same kind, the amount of deposit is larger as of the date on which the order of seizure of this case was served on the garnishee; (c) Provided, That if there are deposit claims of the same kind among the deposit claims, provisional seizure and provisional seizure, the Plaintiff received the seizure and collection order of this case with the content of seizure in the order from the deposit claims that were not attached; and (d) on March 8, 2010, the above seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on March 8, 2010.

3) On March 10, 2010, when several accounts exist as the same kind of deposit claims in the order of entry, among the following deposit claims, the part of the claim to be seized and collected, among the claims to be deposited in the present and future by △△△△△ in the order of entry, the Plaintiff issued a decision of correction to change the amount of the deposit from the date of delivery to the third obligor: Provided, That if there are deposit claims seized and provisionally seized among the deposit claims, and other deposit claims, the above decision was delivered to the Defendant on March 16, 2010. < Amended by Act No. 10218, Mar. 16, 2010>

B. The defendant's offset disposition

1) On March 18, 2010, immediately after receiving a collection order for the instant claim attachment and collection, the Defendant: (a) on March 18, 2010, the following loans were overdue (or (a cause for loss of benefit of time) and (b) March 3, 2010.

25. The settlement and repayment shall be made up to the prime time, and if there is no reorganization and repayment within the said period, the principal and interest of the loan, etc. shall be offset pursuant to Article 10 of the Bank Transactions Basic Terms and Conditions, and the principal time shall be reached: Provided, That with respect to the security deposit in the name of △△, a separate notice of offset shall be given without any notice, and the said notice of offset shall arrive at △ on March 23, 2010. The above notice of set-off scheduled amount reaches (unit: prime (unit: unit) deposit details (unit) 2) the Defendant did not pay the obligation even after receiving the above set-off notice. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 22173, Apr. 1, 2010; Presidential Decree No. 22148, Apr. 5, 2010>

7. In sending a set-off notice to △△△△, the notice was given that the remaining loan claims remaining after set-off, namely, ① 61,052,00 out of the first loan, ② 2, and 3 loans are transferred to the Defendant’s credit transaction center.

C. Provisional attachment, etc. of this case

1) On July 17, 2009, the Plaintiff was served with the Seoul Central District Court 2009Kadan71** with the claim amount of KRW 1,00,00,000, and KRW 1,000 with respect to the loan claim against △△. The debtor’s account against △△△△ and the third debtor’s defendant, up to the amount claimed in the following order: ① the amount not seized or provisionally seized if there is an unregistered deposit and a seized deposit, ② the amount not seized or provisionally seized, ② if there are several kinds of deposits, the account was sent to 99,99, 740, and 99, the provisional seizure order was served to the Defendant* 199, 199, 70, and 30, the provisional seizure order was served to the Defendant* 19,70,000, the Defendant was served with the debtor * 19,70,70,000,000.

3) On the other hand, the account of this case is so-called so-called a passbook passbook of KRW 10,00,000,000, and around KRW 6.6 billion on July 16, 2009, which was around the time when the provisional attachment decision of this case was served on the Defendant, and was deposited in approximately KRW 6.6 billion on July 16, 2009, which was around the time when the provisional attachment decision of this case was served on the Defendant. However, immediately after the delivery of the provisional attachment decision of this case, approximately KRW 4.6 billion was fully withdrawn.

On July 20, 2009, the defendant transferred KRW 1,99,99,740, which was registered as provisional seizure from the account in this case, to another account in △△*****01-*** 4608 account (hereinafter referred to as "4608 account"), and then registered as provisional seizure in the above "4608 account", and cancelled the provisional seizure registration of the account in this case.

Upon the cancellation of the provisional attachment registration of the account of this case, the provisional attachment registration of the account of this case was withdrawn again from the account of the Marina and became 953,02,025 won in the balance as of July 20, 209, and thereafter deposit and withdrawal continued (-) while maintaining the status of the account of this case.

D. After the issuance of the provisional seizure order, etc., the provisional seizure and collection order, etc. of this case, was served on the Defendant as indicated below, even after the provisional seizure order, etc. of this case was issued. (The following order was served on the Defendant: (a) the seizure and collection order of the claims No. 3 through 5 as indicated in the table below; and (b) the seizure and collection order of the separate claims was served on the Defendant. (c) Meanwhile, in addition to the six claims seizure and collection order, the provisional seizure and collection order of the 10 claims were additionally served on the Defendant from December 2009 to March 20, 2010.

Of the deposit claims, including the amount to be deposited in the future by the OO against the defendant, the following order: (i) in the event there is a deposit which has not been seized and seized, (ii) in the case of multiple kinds of deposits, the order of provisional seizure before the attachment or provisional seizure; (iii) in the case of multiple kinds of deposits, the order of call, deposit, separate account, and (iv) in the case of the same kind of accounts, the account number is rapid; (ii) in the order of deposit and trust account of 4608 account among the deposit accounts against the defendant of Dori-gu, each time when the issuance of the order of seizure and collection as mentioned in the above table was made; (iii) in the account of 4608 account of 4608 account; and (iv) in the aggregate of the bonds issued to the defendant of this case, 3) in the order of 1,000 won after the issuance of the order of seizure and collection; and (v) in the 4) in the order of 1, 2009.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 7, 11, Eul evidence 1, 2, 4 through 11, 13 through 15, 20, 21 and the purport of the whole pleadings

3. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's primary assertion and the defendant's answer 1) The plaintiff lawful delivery of the seizure and collection order of this case to the defendant. Thus, the defendant asserts that the collection right holder is liable to pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000,000 won out of the above seizure and collection order (the deposit claims in all the deposit accounts in △△△△), and damages for delay.

2) On March 18, 2010, the defendant paid 3,63,718,261 won in aggregate, as stated in the statement of "the claim for loans to the defendant's △△ as of March 18, 2010, which was finally delivered to the defendant for the attachment and collection order of this case, and ** 01 ** 3263 accounts (hereinafter referred to as 3263 accounts) and 4608 accounts of the defendant's deposit account, which were issued to the defendant's deposit account, and the defendant's deposit claim against the defendant's △△△△△ was extinguished, and the defendant did not deliver the defendant's deposit claim of this case to the defendant's deposit account of this case with the defendant's deposit claim of this case, which was extinguished by the defendant's deposit account of this case …§ 460,611,683, 633 won, and the defendant did not deliver the defendant's deposit claim of this case to the defendant's deposit claim of this case before the order of this case.

B. The plaintiff's preliminary assertion and the defendant's response 1) The plaintiff argued that the provisional seizure of this case was not profitable when the plaintiff dealt with a set-off against the loan claims against △△△ at the time when the provisional seizure order of this case was delivered, and that the provisional seizure of this case was made by the plaintiff. In addition, the plaintiff did not register the provisional seizure of this case, including the seizure and collection order of this case, in spite of the separate seizure and collection order of this case, the plaintiff neglected to allow △△△ to withdraw the deposit exceeding 14 billion won and caused damage to the plaintiff's failure to recover the claim, so the defendant is liable to compensate the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort.

2) As to this, the Defendant’s withdrawal of the provisional attachment of this case is in accordance with the Plaintiff’s decision-making and is irrelevant to the Defendant. The Defendant’s failure to register the seizure of the instant case’s account is due to the fact that the balance of the instant account actually existed only as the loan liability and the deposit did not exist. As such, the Plaintiff’s preliminary assertion based on the premise that the Defendant committed a tort is groundless.

4. Judgment on the plaintiff's primary argument

A. First, as to whether the effect of the seizure and collection order of the instant claim affects the instant account, it is reasonable to view that the effect of the seizure and collection order, including the seizure and collection order of the instant claim, extends to the deposit out of the instant account, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the instant recognition.

(1) In ordinary cases of passbooks: (a) where the balance of passbooks (+) is offered within the lending limit agreed with customers, it is reasonable to view that a financial institution’s transaction has the characteristics of deposit in cases where the balance of passbooks is more than the balance of deposit, and (b) where the bank withdraws the money in excess of the balance of deposit, the loan automatically is executed for the excess portion; and (c) where the customer deposits money, it constitutes a transaction with the nature of deposit and loan which are traded automatically

② Article 7(1) of the Terms and Conditions for Bank Credit Transactions (No. 2) of the Defendant’s Basic Terms and Conditions for Bank Credit (No. 7(1) provides that “When a seizure order or attachment notice has been sent to the Bank, or when a compulsory execution or a disposition for arrears has been commenced by any other means, or when a disposition for arrears has been commenced by any other means,” the obligor, without any separate demand or notice, shall lose the benefit of all obligations to the Bank, and the underlying terms and conditions for Bank Credit Credit Transactions shall also apply to the Account Transactions, which is the head of Maspbook. Accordingly, in this case, the separate claim attachment and collection order by the creditors of Mari-

9. 16. 16. The above bond seizure and collection order were served on the Defendant, and as seen earlier, the above bond seizure and collection order is served on the Defendant with all deposit claims in the deposit account against the Defendant in △△△△, and thus, the account of this case, the head of Maners passbook, as mentioned above, is lost the benefit of the loan due to the loss of the benefit of the loan due to the time when the separate bond seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant, and the obligation for the loan is finalized, and the money deposited into the account in this case thereafter shall be deemed

③ Notwithstanding a separate claim attachment and collection order, if the loan and the deposit account of this case, which is a Masp passbook, are not separated, and the money deposited thereafter cannot be seized unless the balance of the account of this case is + (+) even if the balance of the account of this case cannot be seized, in collusion with the debtor, the creditor of the account holder may not seize the money deposited in the account of the account holder, if he/she continues to enter and withdraw, while maintaining the balance of the Maspbook in collusion with the third debtor financial institution. This is likely to be exploited as a means to escape the seizure system.

In fact, even after the issuance of a separate claim attachment and collection order to the Defendant in this case, the Defendant did not register the seizure of the account in this case, and thereby, from September 17, 2009 to March 2010.

13. Until the time, until the time when the seizure right holder deposited money exceeding 14 billion won, which much exceeds the total amount of claims, into the account of this case, and was paid to △△. As seen earlier.

B. Furthermore, with regard to the scope of the effect of the instant claim seizure and collection order, comprehensively taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the facts acknowledged as the whole, the instant claim seizure and collection order extends to the deposit of the instant account equivalent to at least KRW 1,371,45,05,056 in the aggregate of the claims for the separate claim seizure and collection order, and the Defendant, contrary to the validity of the seizure, paid the amount equivalent to the aggregate of the claims for the instant claim to △△, and thus, cannot be asserted against the Plaintiff and other persons holding the collection order.

1. Claims against the Defendant in △△△ Branch: The seizure and collection order is issued on September 2009.

16. The defendant lost the benefit of time at the same time as the defendant was served on, and as a result, the defendant may set off the loan claims against △△ prior to the seizure and collection order owner against the defendant in △△△.

However, it is reasonable to view that the total amount of loans to the Defendant’s U.S. U.S. M. 3 as of September 16, 2009 does not exceed the above limit, and therefore, even if the Defendant assumes that the entire claim of the above loans is offset against the deposits of this case deposited after September 16, 2009, the deposit of approximately KRW 10 billion remains.

② The separate claim attachment and collection order, including the "amount to be deposited in the future" as the seized claim, is to be attached first among the deposit claims against the defendant by △△△△, which are not the preceding seizure and provisional seizure. The defendant should have suspended the payment of the deposit deposited after September 16, 2009 by registering the seizure and provisional seizure on the separate claim attachment and collection order, rather than registering the seizure on the separate claim attachment and collection order in the "4608 account where the preceding seizure and provisional seizure was made". Therefore, the seizure on the deposit of this case corresponding to the total amount of the claim amount of the separate claim attachment and collection order shall have effect on the deposit of this case corresponding to the 1,371,455,056 won.

(3) Of course, the Plaintiff’s seizure and collection order was issued subsequent to the completion of the entire deposit payment by the Defendant. However, in case where the part of the claim is more than the remainder after the seizure was made and the seizure is the aggregate, the effect of each seizure shall be the whole of the claim. In this case, even if the seizure was issued subsequent to other seizure, it shall, in principle, have the effect on the whole of the claim incurred prior to the seizure except for the case where the effect of prior seizure is excluded due to other reasons before the seizure (Supreme Court Decision 2001Da538, May 30, 2003).

10748 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 10748). Since the seizure and collection order of this case was issued under the condition that the seizure and collection order of this case were not cancelled after the provisional seizure and collection order became effective, it is reasonable to view that the seizure and collection order of this case were effective against the deposit of this case equivalent to the above KRW 1,371, 455,056, which was seized under the separate seizure and collection order.

C. Meanwhile, in the case of a seizure competition agreement, the creditor collecting the claim upon receiving a collection order is a kind of collection agency according to the authorization of the court of execution and collects the claim from the third debtor for all creditors taking part in the seizure or distribution. Thus, if the third debtor repays the debt to the legitimate collection authority, the third debtor is also effective against all creditors in the relation of the seizure competition (Supreme Court Decision 2003 May 20

30. See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10748, Nov. 22, 201). The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 1,00,000,000, and damages for delay under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from November 22, 2011 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, within the scope of the deposit of this case attached to the Plaintiff, the collection right holder.

D. Therefore, the plaintiff's primary argument is reasonable without a further consideration as to whether offsetting the claim for the loan against the defendant in △△△△△, the "3263 account", and the "4608 account" against the defendant in △△△△, without any further consideration as to whether it constitutes abuse of the right of offset (the plaintiff's primary argument is with merit, and thus it is not separately determined as to the preliminary argument.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per the disposition.

Judges fixed-scale

Deferment of Justice