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

A. On February 22, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) from this court on February 22, 2016, the obligor; (b) the garnishee; and (c) the claim amounting to 83,098,870 won; and (d) seizes the following:

The collection order (2016TTT 2520 et al., hereinafter referred to as "the seizure and collection order in this case") was issued by specifying the claims to be collected.

The amount claimed by the debtor out of the amount claimed by the debtor to the third debtor in relation to the construction of Heatote apartment (hereinafter referred to as "(i) and (ii) the Hyundai Motor Research Institute Building Corporation located in Namyang-si, Namyang-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as "B Corporation") in relation to the construction of the Hyundai Motor Research Institute Building Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the construction") located in

B. On May 31, 2016, Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd. deposited KRW 389,60,460, in total, KRW 19,783,148 as construction cost, ② construction cost, KRW 205,757 as construction cost, and KRW 164,06,85 as construction cost, for the Defendant’s creditors including the Plaintiff at the Seoul Central District Court of Seoul Central District.

C. The Plaintiff participated in the distribution procedure B of the Gwangju District Court (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”) based on the instant seizure and collection order, but was excluded from the distribution on the ground that the seized claim was not specified.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Although the seizure and collection order of this case had its effect by specifying the seized claim, the court erred in excluding the plaintiff from the distribution of dividends on the premise that the seizure and collection order of this case had no effect, and thus requested correction of the distribution schedule as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Determination

Any creditor who requests a provisional seizure or order of seizure against a claim, shall seize the claim in the application.

Article 225 and Article 291 of the Civil Execution Act). In particular, when an application for an order of seizure is filed only for some of the claims to be seized, the scope thereof should be clearly stated (Articles 159(1)3 and 218 of the Regulations on Civil Execution). Nevertheless, in cases where a creditor applies for provisional seizure or seizure and the scope of the claims to be seized are not specified in a provisional seizure or seizure order due to the failure of the creditor to specify the subject and scope of the claims to be seized, the order of seizure, etc. shall not take effect in cases where the claims to be seized are not specified in the provisional seizure or seizure order. This legal principle applies to a third obligor, who has multiple claims against the third obligor, and in such cases, the obligee may clearly specify the purport of the application for seizure, etc. within the scope of one of the several claims in itself. However, even if the sum of multiple claims subject to seizure is smaller than the sum of claims subject to seizure or all of multiple claims have occurred under a single contract, a decision of seizure cannot be seen as having been rendered separately by the obligor 216.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the above facts, the seized claim stated in the seizure and collection order of this case, which was performed by the plaintiff's debtor and the third debtor against Hyundai Engineering Co., Ltd., which was filed by the plaintiff's debtor and the third debtor, is related to the debtor's (1), (2) the amount of construction work, which is related to the construction work, and (3) the seizure and collection order of this case, is not clearly recognizable within the scope of which the construction work is not stated, and it does not constitute a case where the seizure and collection order under the proviso to the above legal principles is valid. Thus, the seizure and collection order of this case does not specify the seized claim, and thus, it is not effective

On the premise, the above argument of the first-party plaintiff is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.