청구이의
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On January 25, 2018, the Defendant: (a) obtained a seizure and collection order from the Daejeon District Court Branch of Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court (2017 tea 445) and seized the amount until C reaches KRW 10,541,007, out of the current and future claim against the Plaintiff, with the third obligor as the Plaintiff based on the claim for the purchase of goods against C; and (b) the said seizure and collection order was served on the Plaintiff on January 29, 2018.
B. On April 2, 2018, the Defendant seized the amount of money up to KRW 13,990,673 out of the present and future claim that C had against the Plaintiff by receiving a seizure and collection order from the Daejeon District Court, Seosan Branch Branch Office 2018TTT732, with the third debtor as the Plaintiff based on the claim for the purchase of goods against C (the price of goods sold in this court 2017 tea 445). The above collection order was served on the Plaintiff on April 9, 2018.
C. On April 27, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking payment of the amount of the said seizure collection amount under this court’s 2018 Ghana1796, and reached the Plaintiff on April 25, 2018, and the Plaintiff did not raise any objection.
On November 6, 2018, the Plaintiff: (a) deposited KRW 10,357,904 for the sale price of goods up to the time of D on the ground of the seizure collection order and the notice of seizure of the budget tax ledger (43,818,390 won); and (b) the Defendant did not receive dividends.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 13 (including each number in the case of additional evidence) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that, on November 6, 2018, there remain no obligations to be collected as a deposit for execution.
However, according to the evidence Nos. 14 and evidence Nos. 18, 14 and 8, even after the issuance of the Defendant’s two or more collection orders, the Plaintiff is against C of the validity of the decision of seizure of claims, against the validity of the decision of seizure of claims, even after the issuance of the Defendant’s two or more collection orders. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 20101, Feb. 1, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 24201, Feb. 8, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 24755, Mar. 2, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 21300, Apr. 4, 2018; Presidential Decree No. 2