추심금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On April 29, 2019, based on the enforcement title against C (Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2017Da20286, Mar. 9, 2018), the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order (Seoul Southern Northern District Court Decision 2017Da20286, Apr. 29, 2019) (hereinafter “instant collection order”) of KRW 84,667,510, the amount claimed by the Defendant as the garnishee and the third obligor, and the order was served on the Defendant on May 2, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1-3
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff seeks payment of KRW 45,00,000, and damages for delay, from the Defendant, a third debtor, based on the instant collection order, to the Defendant, who is the garnishee. (The amount equivalent to KRW 84,67,510, out of the amount claimed, out of the amount claimed against the Defendant’s wage and retirement allowance claims against the Defendant).
B. However, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2 of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 2 as well as the overall purport of pleadings, D, who is another creditor of C, is issued a claim attachment and assignment order (Seoul Southern District Court 2017TTTT 14975; hereinafter “instant attachment assignment order”) with the claim amount of KRW 300,000,000,000, which is the claim amount of the defendant as the third debtor, and the defendant as the third debtor, and the order was delivered to C on November 15, 2017 and delivered to C on January 12, 2018 and confirmed as the immediate appeal period, and the claims subject to the attachment assignment order of D cannot be deemed as identical to the claims subject to the attachment collection order of the defendant, and the claims subject to the attachment order of this case cannot be deemed as being served to the defendant until the assignment order of this case becomes void due to the discovery of other claims subject to the attachment or assignment order of this case.
C. According to the above facts, since the Plaintiff had already transferred its claims against the Defendant before seizing C’s claims against the Defendant, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the Plaintiff the obligation of the seized claims.
3. Conclusion.