양수금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. B on August 27, 2008, leased the lease deposit amount of KRW 15,814,000 from the Defendant, Nam-gu, Incheon at KRW 107 Dong-gu, Incheon at KRW 107,703, and thereafter the lease contract is renewed and maintained until now.
B. On December 23, 2015, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order under the Incheon Western District Court 2015TTTT 2015TT 32873 on December 28, 2015 with respect to the claim for the return of lease deposit (hereinafter “the claim of this case”) against the Defendant based on the authentic copy of a ruling of recommending reconciliation with executory power in the lending case of Seoul Western District Court 2014GaGa1686, Seoul Western District Court 2014. The Plaintiff was served on the Defendant on December 28, 2015.
C. Meanwhile, B transferred the instant claim to Korea Life Insurance Co., Ltd. on September 1, 2008, and the content-certified mail containing the intent to notify the assignment of claim was served on the Defendant on September 4, 2008.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 6, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. When the plaintiff alleged by the parties claims the collection amount based on the collection order, the defendant is already notified of the transfer of claims before the delivery of the seizure and collection order, and the seizure and collection order are invalid.
3. No seizure made against the same claim by another creditor of the seizure obligor after the notification of the assignment of claims with a fixed date to the garnishee is valid;
(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da72644 delivered on April 21, 2000, etc.). Then, as seen earlier, the Defendant had already transferred the instant claim to the Life Insurance Co., Ltd. before being served with a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim, and the notification of transfer was served on the Defendant. As such, the attachment and collection order for the non-existent claim is null and void.
4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise that the seizure and collection order are valid is without merit.