2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

2. Determination as to whether the seizure of the service payment claim of this case affects the validity

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the effect of the instant attachment is limited to the service payment claim equivalent to KRW 132 million issued by the electronic tax invoice on March 30, 2017 (hereinafter “instant service payment claim”). As such, the Defendant, on behalf of Nonparty Company, is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the money stated in the claim on behalf of Nonparty Company.

As to this, the defendant asserts that the service payment claim of this case is a new claim that occurred after the seizure takes effect, and that the above claim is not expected to occur in the near future at the time of the seizure taking effect, so the seizure does not take effect.

(b) Any bonds or conditional bonds to be created in the future may be seized if it is possible to specify that right at present and it is reasonably expected to be created in the near future.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2009Da76799 Decided February 25, 2010, etc.). In full view of the following facts and circumstances revealed by the respective descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 7 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the instant claim for service payment constitutes a claim for which the basis of the occurrence thereof is determined, and thus, it is possible to specify the claim, and that it has already occurred or is expected to occur in the near future, the effect of the instant attachment extends to the instant service payment claim.

(1) The list of seized property in the notice of attachment of claims (Evidence A) shall be included in the sales claims (including claims to be incurred later) which the non-party delinquent company holds against the defendant, until the delinquent amount (including the increased additional charges to be added later) is included.