2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff OOO and a copy of the complaint of this case at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

(a) AB filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for the return of unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 2010 to KRW 127018. On May 15, 2012, 201, the court rendered 200 per annum 5% from May 24, 2006 to KRW 20,000 per annum 20 per annum 20% from the next day to KRW 20,00,000 to KRW 10,000,000,000 to KRW 20,000,000,000,000 were 20,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,000,00,00,00.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts, based on the assignment order of this case, that the OOO members were transferred to the Plaintiff out of the claim for unjust enrichment of this case, and filed a claim against the Defendant for the full payment.

On June 20, 2012, prior to the issuance of the assignment order of this case, the defendant asserts that the assignment order of this case is null and void, since the director of the permanent tax office attached all the claim of unjust enrichment of this case.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the attachment by the Director of the Permanent Residential Tax Office on June 20, 2012 by the Director of the Permanent Residential Tax Office does not specify the claims subject to attachment, and that the attachment report does not state the prohibition of payment to the third obligor, and thus invalid

B. Determination

(1) In case where another creditor seizes, seizes, or demands a distribution of the monetary claim until an assignment order is served on the garnishee, the assignment order does not become effective (Article 229(5) of the Civil Execution Court Act).

(2) Therefore, we examine whether the seizure of June 20, 2012 by the head of the permanent tax office is valid or not.

First of all, seizure is null and void if the contents of the claim to be seized are not specified. However, it is sufficient for interested parties to be stated to the extent that it can be distinguished from the debtor's other claims.

"The obligation to be paid to Ansan by the Director of the Central Regional Tax Office in this case seems to be non-existent except for the obligation of this case. Considering that the amount claimed as unjust enrichment of this case in the above case is merely 196,104,034 won based on the principal amount and thus, it cannot be said that the content of the obligation is not specified in the attachment order as of June 20, 2012 by the Director of the Regional Tax Office." Meanwhile, the attachment order includes the content prohibiting the payment of the obligation to the third debtor, who is the original creditor, and the attachment order as of June 20, 2012 does not include the content prohibiting payment to the third party debtor in the attachment report prepared by the Director of the Regional Tax Office at the time of the attachment order.

However, according to the evidence evidence No. 1, it can be acknowledged that the payment of the payment is null and void even if it is paid to the creditor after being notified of the attachment notification to the director of the Central Regional Tax Office. The entry of the third debtor's original creditor prohibition against the payment to the third debtor is to protect the creditor's interest by preventing the third debtor from paying for the debtor's claim. Thus, even if the above contents are not stated in the attachment notification, if it is stated in the attachment notification against the third debtor, the attachment shall be valid if it is stated in the attachment notification against the third debtor.

Ultimately, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.