2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Five minutes of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff.

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 4-1 through 4, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, Gap evidence 9-1, 9-2, Eul evidence 9-1 through 4, the defendant evidence 9-2, the defendant's family branch office of the National Bank of Korea, the defendant Lee Young-dong Mutual Savings and Finance Company, the defendant's testimony against the above recognition is difficult to believe, and the defendant's testimony against Eul evidence 1 and Eul evidence 2 are not interfered with the above recognition, and there is no other evidence to reverse the above recognition.

A. The Plaintiff leased KRW 258,60,000 to the non-party Subdivision Engineering Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “NTT”) and received a check of the face value of KRW 258,600,000 issued by NTT, and the said check was rejected on April 18, 1996.

B. On the other hand, on December 14, 1995, Nanx contracted from Non-Party 1-14 Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tando Construction”) for construction of the ground reinforcement of the construction of the Incheon Urban Railroad 1-2,200,000 won, and performed part of the above construction until January 31, 1996.

C. Accordingly, the Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment of 258,600,000 won from the above court on April 26, 1996 for the provisional attachment of 258,60,000 won out of the above bonds of construction cost, which the Seoul District Court support 96Kahap149, Nam-si, Seoul District Court, as the debtor, and the third party obligor of Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do. In order to preserve the compulsory execution based on the above bonds of Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do Do.

D. However, at the time of the decision of provisional seizure of this case, Nonparty 1, who was in charge of the above court's application and the service of the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure as employees of the collegiate community, did not deliver the original copy of the provisional seizure order to Taedo

E. On January 16, 1996, prior to the above provisional attachment decision, Taedo Construction issued and delivered to Subdivision a promissory note with a face value of KRW 80,60,000 at par value, ② a promissory note with a face value of KRW 58,60,000 at face value, ③ a promissory note with a face value of KRW 60,000 at face value, ③ a promissory note with a face value of KRW 60,000 at face value, and a promissory note with a face value of KRW 59,40,000 at face value as settlement amount on May 30, 1996, and ④ the due date was issued and delivered as a settlement amount on August 29, 196.

F. Around January 16, 1996, Nex received discount from each of the above promissory notes in the manner of endorsement and transfer of each of the said promissory notes to the bond company, and around May 30, 1996, it paid the above 4 promissory notes as construction cost to the Mayang Geo (which is its subcontractor). Each of the above 2 through 4 promissory notes was paid at the payment date, respectively, and (1) the said promissory notes were returned to the bank of the non-party corporation, a person in charge of payment, on December 11, 1996, and were returned to the bank of the non-party corporation, the non-party corporation, a person in charge of payment, as an endorser, as to the stated promissory notes.

G. On April 22, 1998, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with respect to Nex claiming amounting to KRW 258,600,000 on the check amount claim, which is the right to be preserved by the provisional attachment decision of this case, as Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch of Seoul District Court Branch of 98Da5962, which was the right to be preserved by the provisional attachment decision of this case. The Plaintiff accepted the Plaintiff’s claim that “Nex shall pay a sum of KRW 258,60,000 to the Plaintiff and its delay damages.”

H. The Plaintiff did not receive the claim for the check money from the Nex on the ground that the Nex did not have any property other than the above claim for the construction payment.

2. Determination:

(a) Occurrence of liability for damages;

The provisional attachment of a claim is executed by serving the original copy of the decision of provisional attachment on the garnishee, and the provisional attachment is effective by serving the original copy on the garnishee (Articles 707 and 561(3) of the Civil Procedure Act). According to the above facts, in performing his duties, the non-party 1, who is a public official, shall serve the original copy of the decision of provisional attachment of this case on the third debtor, as prescribed by the Civil Procedure Act, and in the case where the service is not properly made after confirming whether the provisional attachment of this case was served, the non-party 1, who is the public official, neglected to take appropriate measures according to the reasons and failed to serve the original copy of the decision of provisional attachment and thereby caused the provisional attachment to become effective by failing to serve the original copy of the decision of provisional attachment. Accordingly, the defendant is liable for damages

(b) Scope of damages;

(1) The Plaintiff asserts that it was impossible to collect or receive in whole the construction cost of KRW 258,060,000 (80,600,000 + 58,060,000 + 60,000 + 600,000 + 59,400,000) paid to Taedo Construction to Subdivision due to the above tort, and sought compensation of KRW 258,060,000.

(2) First of all, as to whether the payment of a promissory note was effective as to the claim for the payment of the construction price in question as stated in the above (1) through (3), it is difficult to view that the payment of a promissory note was extinguished by the provisional attachment, and thus, it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s assertion that the payment of the above provisional attachment was reasonable as to the payment of the construction price in question, and that the payment of the promissory note was made to the holders of each of the above promissory notes after the provisional attachment became effective as to the above claim for the construction price. Thus, it is difficult to view that the above provisional attachment was delivered to the Plaintiff, a provisional attachment obligee, even if the original copy of the provisional attachment was served to the Do Construction and the payment of the promissorysory note was made, and thus, it is difficult to view that it was reasonable to view that the above provisional attachment was delivered to each of the above parties’ respective claims for the construction price.

(3) On May 30, 1996, after the provisional attachment decision of this case, Daedo Construction issued the above Promissory Notes No. 4 for the repayment of the above obligation for the construction price. The above Promissory Notes No. 59,400,000, and the above Promissory Notes No. 59,400,000 were paid on the date of payment. If the above provisional attachment decision became effective, Daedo Construction is unable to repay the above obligation to Subdivision, and even if the above obligation is repaid, it would not be set up against the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff holding the above obligation to compensate the plaintiff for damages equivalent to the above amount No. 59,40,000, since the provisional attachment order of this case was not served on the original copy.

4. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that there was no causal relationship between the failure to deliver the original copy of the provisional seizure decision and the occurrence of damages, since the above promissory note was not yet issued at the time of the decision of provisional seizure.

However, until January 31, 1996, prior to the date of the provisional seizure order, i.e., the execution of part of the construction work contracted from Do Construction and the payment of the construction price claims, the above 4 promissory notes were received for the payment of the construction price claims, and the above provisional seizure is subject to the above claim for the construction price. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant asserts to the effect that even if the original copy of the provisional attachment ruling was served, the plaintiff's claim is groundless, since it is doubtful whether the plaintiff could have obtained satisfaction of the whole claim for the construction price provisionally seized in relation to the other creditors against Lao.

However, in the instant case where there is no other evidence to deem that other creditors seized or seize the above claim for the construction price, the Plaintiff may obtain satisfaction of the claim for the money of its check with a collection order or an order issued in whole with respect to the above claim for the construction price provisionally attached. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

C. On May 15, 1996, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff's claim is groundless, since the plaintiff did not take measures to preserve the claim with knowledge that the original copy of the provisional attachment decision of this case was not served on Do Construction.

On May 26, 1996, when one month has elapsed from the date of the decision of provisional seizure of this case, the witness non-party 1's testimony is difficult to believe that the plaintiff knew that the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure of this case was not served on Do construction, and there is no objective data to support it, and there is no other evidence to support the above assertion. Accordingly, the above assertion is without merit.

D. Even after being aware that the Plaintiff was not served with the original copy of the provisional attachment decision of this case, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless, since, even after having been aware of the fact that the Plaintiff did not contact Nonparty 1 several times for consultation on legal issues separate from the instant case, it did not raise any problem of non-service of the provisional attachment decision

The testimony of Nonparty 1, who corresponds to the above argument, is difficult to believe because there is no objective material to support it, and there is no other evidence to prove the above argument. In addition, even if the Plaintiff continued to communicate with Nonparty 1 after being aware of the fact that the original copy of the provisional attachment decision of this case was not served, and did not immediately pursue the above service problem, it cannot be deemed to have renounced the right to claim damages against the Defendant, and it is difficult to view the claim of this case to be unreasonable solely on the same reason. Thus, the above argument is without merit.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a sum of 59,400,000 won and to pay damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum prescribed in the Civil Act from November 12, 1997 to February 4, 1999, which is obvious from the date following the delivery date of the complaint, as the plaintiff seeks, and from February 4, 1999, the date following the decision is delivered, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 25% per annum prescribed in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition,

Judges Jeong Jin-jin (Presiding Judge)