[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 1 other

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Under the current law, the procedure for disposition on default and civil execution procedure are separate procedures, and there is no provision in the law regulating relations between two procedures, so one procedure cannot interfere with the other, while each creditor in both procedures is entitled to participate in the different procedure by determining different procedures (see Supreme Court Decision 8Meu42, Jan. 31, 1989, etc.).

Therefore, under the Civil Execution Act, a creditor who has received a seizure and collection order may file a lawsuit against a third party debtor for a collection under the Civil Execution Act against the claims seized under a disposition for arrears. A third party debtor cannot refuse a creditor who has received a seizure and collection order in civil execution procedures on the ground that the seizure and collection order under a disposition for arrears prior to a seizure and collection order competes with each other, and the seizure under a disposition for arrears prior to a seizure and collection order cannot refuse a request for a collection by the creditor who has received a seizure and collection order under the civil execution procedures, and may not refuse a request for a collection by an execution creditor for a disposition for arrears on the ground that the seizure under civil execution procedures pursuant to the Labor Standards Act is based on the wage and other claims with a preferential right under the Labor Standards Act (see Supreme Court Decision

However, the garnishee may claim the extinguishment of the obligation with respect to the repayment portion, in response to either of the execution creditors under the disposition on default or of the creditors who received the seizure and collection order in the civil execution procedure, and either of the creditors who received the seizure and collection order, and may also be discharged from liability by making a deposit for execution under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 96Da5179, Jun. 14, 1996; 2007Da29591, Sept. 6, 2007). Furthermore, if the execution creditor by the disposition on default collects the seized claim from the third debtor, the distribution procedure under the National Tax Collection Act is followed if the creditor who received the seizure and collection order in the civil execution procedure collects the seized claim from the third debtor, the amount collected under Article 236(2) of the Civil Execution Act must be deposited immediately and reported the grounds therefor.

B. citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment, citing the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution procedure and, prior to the delivery of the seizure and collection order of this case by the Plaintiff’s compulsory execution procedure, Manman, Inc., Ltd.

Even if the claim of this case was seized against the Defendant by reason of the delinquency in national taxes, the Plaintiff determined to the effect that the Plaintiff could collect the claim of this case, which was seized by the seizure and collection order of this case.

Such determination by the court below is based on the legal principles as seen earlier, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of the seizure of claims based on a disposition on default.

On the other hand, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da33842 Decided November 13, 2008 cited as the ground of appeal is related to whether a third party obligor has the benefit of confirming the right to claim for payment of deposit in a case where a third party obligor deposits pursuant to Articles 291 and 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the grounds of competition between seizure by a disposition for arrears and a provisional seizure by a civil execution procedure, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case with some of the reasoning of the judgment.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

According to the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record, on November 3, 2011, 201, in the Seoul High Court 201Na53852 Lease Fee case between the case and the Defendant, the Defendant confirmed that the amount of the rent against the Defendant is KRW 100 million. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23584, Nov. 3, 2011; Presidential Decree No. 25068, Mar. 3, 201; Presidential Decree No. 25075, Feb. 2, 2011>

In light of the language and text of the decision in lieu of the above conciliation, the defendant's obligation to pay KRW 100 million to the defendant's case known by the above decision is not fixed by the deadline, and the defendant shall be held liable for delay from the time of receipt of the claim for performance.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the above 100 million won damages for delay did not exist cannot be accepted. Thus, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of judgment as alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Yong-deok