전부금 등
1. Defendant B shall deliver to the Seoul Housing and Urban Corporation the real estate listed in the separate sheet.
2. Defendant.
1. Basic facts
A. On July 26, 200, Defendant B concluded a lease contract with the Defendant for a lease deposit of KRW 12,50,000 with respect to the real estate listed in the separate sheet (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) and for a two-year lease term (hereinafter “the instant lease contract”) with the Defendant Corporation (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and then renewed the lease contract with the content of KRW 1,2,050,000 for each lease term from October 1, 2016 to September 30, 2018, following the renewal contract every two years.
B. Meanwhile, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment rendered by the Seoul Central District Court 2006Na2345 regarding Defendant B on the basis of medical expenses, etc., the Plaintiff was issued an attachment and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) regarding the claim for the refund of the lease deposit against Defendant B’s Defendant Corporation with the same court amounting to KRW 9,215,807. The said order was served on the Defendant Corporation, the garnishee, around December 15, 2006.
C. Around December 15, 2006, when the assignment order of this case was served on the Defendant Corporation, the lease term of this case was from October 1, 2006 to September 30, 2008.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. (1) On the claim against Defendant B, when an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, the seized claim is naturally transferred to all creditors within the scope of the enforcement claim retroactively from the time it was served on the garnishee, and at the same time the extinction of the enforcement claim takes effect. The same applies to cases where the seized claim is a future claim containing an ambiguous element of its existence and scope.
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da70716 delivered on April 21, 2000). According to the above facts, the assignment order of this case became final and conclusive on December 15, 2006.