청구이의
1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part of the motion for non-permission of compulsory execution regarding KRW 9,810,248 shall be dismissed.
2. The defendant's plaintiff.
Based on the facts, the defendant applied for a payment order against the plaintiff for a loan of KRW 6,000,000 and damages for delay against the loan of KRW 6,000,000,000 at this court on February 20, 208, and this court issued a payment order on February 25, 2008. The above payment order was finalized on March 15, 2008.
(hereinafter “instant payment order”). On July 3, 2015, the Defendant received the instant payment order as the executive title, and accordingly, collected KRW 4,865,383 from the Industrial Bank of Korea of the third debtor, and collected KRW 4,94,865 from the third debtor, the Han Bank of Korea of the third debtor, respectively, and reported the collection on July 14, 2015. < Amended by Act No. 13585, Jul. 14, 2015>
[Ground of recognition] A. A. 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the entire pleadings. However, there is no benefit to seek non-performance of compulsory execution after a creditor has satisfied as a whole after the compulsory execution of non-performance of compulsory execution of KRW 9,810,248 among the lawsuits in this case has been completed.
(1) In cases where a creditor, who has been issued a collection order, collects a seized claim from a garnishee and reports on collection under Article 236(1) of the Civil Execution Act after having received a seizure order and collection order, the seized claim shall be extinguished within the scope of the collected claim, unless there exists any other seizure, provisional seizure, or demand for distribution until such time, and where the execution court conducts an investigation into the appropriation relationship, etc. of the collected claim and takes the full repayment of the executed claim, it shall deliver an executory exemplification to the debtor, and where a part of the repayment has been made, the execution execution of the claim shall be terminated by taking measures, such as returning it to the creditor, stating the purport in the executory exemplification, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da54725, Dec. 10, 2004). In light of this, it shall be examined in light of the foregoing, as seen earlier, the Defendant’s seizure and seizure of the claim of this case.