건물명도 등
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is dismissed.
3...
1. On December 3, 2012, Defendant B: (a) leased the instant building from Defendant C as the lease deposit amount of KRW 30 million; (b) up to December 6, 2014; and (c) on December 9, 2014, Defendant B occupied and used the instant building as of December 3, 2012.
On March 4, 2013, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment on March 4, 2013, the Plaintiff received the attachment and assignment order of the claim for the refund of the lease deposit against Defendant C by Seoul Central District Court 2013TT5470.
On March 28, 2013, the attachment and assignment order of claims was served on the defendants, and became final and conclusive on March 28, 2013.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-4 evidence, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 30 million to Defendant C of the entire claim (a claim to return lease deposit) and sought delivery of the instant building in subrogation of Defendant C for the preservation of the entire claim against Defendant B.
B. Article 246(1)6 of the Civil Execution Act provides that an amount of money that can be preferentially reimbursed pursuant to the Housing Lease Protection Act and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act shall be prohibited from seizure.
The Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25035, Dec. 30, 2013) and Article 10(1)1 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 25035, Dec. 30, 2013) are entitled to preferential payment of KRW 30 million for the instant building. Thus, it constitutes a claim subject to prohibition of seizure under Article 246(1)6 of
Ultimately, since the seizure and assignment order on the claim for return of the lease deposit of this case, which is prohibited from seizure, is in violation of the mandatory law and invalid, there is no all the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C (right to return the lease deposit).
C. In a case where the obligee’s right to the obligor to be preserved by subrogation in a creditor subrogation lawsuit against Defendant B is not recognized, the obligee himself/herself becomes the Plaintiff and the garnishee is the obligor.