배당이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation of the instant case is as follows, except for the Plaintiff’s addition of the following determination as to the new argument at the trial, and thus, the reasoning for the judgment at the court of first instance is as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion F acquired the claim against the non-party company by transfer of D’s claim against the non-party company, and F also acquired the claim against the non-party company.
Therefore, the plaintiff who received a seizure and collection order as to the F's claim against the non-party company is entitled to receive dividends in the distribution procedure of this case.
B. Determination 1) Even if there was a collection order against a monetary claim, it is nothing more than the realization of the realization of the realization disposition in the compulsory execution procedure because it merely gives the creditor the creditor the right to collect the creditor's claim against the third debtor in the compulsory execution procedure, and it does not belong to the creditor. Thus, such collection right cannot be seized because it does not directly dispose of and realize the debt against the third debtor. 2) In addition, D merely becomes capable of collecting the debt against the non-party company E by receiving the seizure and collection order as to the non-party company E, and it is insufficient to recognize that D directly acquired the debt against the non-party company separate from the above seizure and collection order, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise.
Therefore, even if F may have been delegated or transferred by D the ability to collect claims, it cannot be transferred from D the claims that D did not have acquired, and there is no evidence to prove that F acquired the claims directly against the non-party company. Therefore, F cannot be deemed as a creditor against the non-party company.
Therefore, it is true.