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

○○ District Court’s 2006 Other 3027 in the distribution procedure, deleted the dividend amount of KRW 55,562,930 against the Defendant from among the distribution schedule prepared by the said court on March 16, 2007, and corrected that the said amount is distributed to the Plaintiff.

2. Purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

A. Nonparty ○○○ was working at ○○ University, which operated and operated Nonparty 2’s school foundation (hereinafter “○○ Private Teaching Institute”), and was working for the said ○ University from February 24, 199 to October 1, 2003.

B. In order to execute the claim amounting to KRW 180,262,200 based on the authentic copy of the No. 5183 of the No. 5183 of the No. 2003 of the No. 2003 of the No. 310, Oct. 28, 2003, ○○ District Court 2003, issued an order for the seizure and assignment of the claim against the said ○○ Private Teaching Institute’s wage claim, etc., and issued an order for the seizure and assignment of the above claim to the said ○○ Private Teaching Institute on Nov. 4, 2003, the said order was served on the said ○ Private Teaching Institute, a debtor on November 3, 2003.

C. On September 13, 199, 199, ○○ Tax Office, which is under the Defendant’s control, entered the garnishee as “○○ University,” and attached a third party obligor on four occasions in arrears with respect to the claim for benefits, etc. from the above Kim○○○○○ University on the said claim for reimbursement, etc. on September 20, 2003, and notified the third party obligor to ○○ University. Meanwhile, on October 27, 2005, ○○○ Tax Office, entered the third party obligor as “○○ Private Teaching Institute,” attached the said claim for reimbursement, etc. on November 7, 2005, and notified the third party obligor of the attachment. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 19083, Oct. 27, 2005; Presidential Decree No. 19013, Nov. 7, 2005>

D. On October 26, 2006, ○○ Private Teaching Institute deposited benefits and other claims payable to the said ○○○○○○○ in accordance with ○○ District Court Decision 2006No7798, Oct. 26, 2006, based on Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and reported the reasons for deposit in the said court.

E. In distributing KRW 55,562,930, which was implemented on March 16, 2007, the Gwangju District Court distributed a total of KRW 55,562,930, which was to be actually distributed on the date of distribution in the distribution procedure case No. 2006ta-Ba3027, the above court, and prepared a distribution schedule with the content that was not fully distributed to the Plaintiff, who is the person having the attachment right, as a whole, the seizure of the instant wage claim and the entire owner of the instant wage claim, and the Plaintiff raised an objection against the entire amount distributed to the Defendant on the date of distribution.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 10, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The plaintiff's assertion

Before the plaintiff's attachment and assignment order on the above Kim ○'s wage claim becomes final and conclusive, the above seizure by the defendant, which was made prior to the determination of the attachment and assignment order of the above Kim ○'s wage, was not a third debtor's "O○ University" but a third debtor's "O○ University". Thus, the defendant's attachment of the third debtor, which was made thereafter, cannot be set up against the plaintiff first priority. Thus, the dividend of this case against the defendant is unlawful and should be revised as stated

(2) The defendant's assertion

The Defendant’s “National Tax Computer System” is the name of the legal entity of ○ University, a separate business registration number is given to ○ University, and the person who pays wage and salary income from ○○ University is written in the list of data on property, etc. of ○○ University, which is not the ○ Private Teaching Institute, and the person who is liable to pay wages to ○○ University on the ground that the person liable to pay the wages to ○○ University is the ○○ University on the report on the performance of withholding taxes. As such, it is legitimate for the Defendant to seize the third obligor’s claims, such as the wages of ○○ University by making the third obligor to ○○ University.

B. Determination

(1) ○ University is merely the name of the educational facility operated by ○○ University, and is neither a juristic person nor an unincorporated association or foundation. As such, it itself does not have legal capacity to become the subject of rights and obligations independently from ○ Private Teaching Institutes (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da21991, Jun. 29, 2001). The person liable to pay wages to the teaching staff working at ○○ University is the ○○ University and is not the ○○ University. Accordingly, in order to seize the claim for Kim○’s benefits, etc., the third obligor should be the ○ University. Accordingly, the third obligor is not the ○ University under the above circumstances asserted by the Defendant, and furthermore, the third obligor cannot be deemed the ○ University’s employees as the ○○ University’s employees as the ○○ University’s third obligor’s employees as the ○ University’s employees as the ○○ University’s employees as the ○ University’s employees as the ○ University’s employees under the tax law.

(2) Ultimately, on or before November 4, 2003, the plaintiff's assignment order became final and conclusive, each of the above seizures notified by the defendant to ○ University as the third obligor four times on or before November 4, 2003 are not effective since all of the above seizures were erroneous and delivered to the third obligor (Article 41 (1) and 42 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "the director of the tax office shall notify the third obligor of the seizure of the seizure of the claim, and the seizure of the claim shall take effect when the notice of seizure of the claim is delivered to the third obligor." The seizure and notification made by the defendant to ○○ Institute as the third obligor on or after October 27, 2005 cannot be asserted against the plaintiff since the plaintiff's assignment order became final and conclusive and all of the above claims, such as the above Kim○○ University's payment, etc., were made after all of the claims against the defendant were entirely distributed to the plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.