사해행위취소
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant B is KRW 97,824,816.
Basic Facts
The reasoning for this part is that the court's reasoning is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the case where "Osan Saemaul Savings Depository (the issue amount of 1,807,00,000 won of the certificate of beneficial rights)" in Section 11 of Article 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance as "the defendant joining the defendant (the issue amount of 1,807,00,000 won of the certificate of beneficial rights)," and "appointed" in Section 18 as "the defendant joining the defendant (the issue amount of 1,807,00,000 won of the certificate of beneficial rights)
The summary of the Defendant’s assertion as to the defense of this safety defense was issued with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the construction cost against the Defendant partnership corporation and the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution following the revocation of fraudulent act against the Defendant Rose of Sharon trust. As such, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is all unlawful.
Judgment
Where an order of seizure and collection is issued with respect to the relevant legal claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008; 2009Da85717, Feb. 25, 2010). Meanwhile, a seizure order against an obligation takes effect at the time of delivery to a garnishee (Article 227(3) of the Civil Execution Act). Since the effect of the seizure against an obligation is limited to a subordinate right, it naturally extends to the interest or delay damages incurred after the seizure takes effect, but it does not extend to the interest or delay damages incurred after the seizure takes effect.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1587, May 28, 2015). In full view of the respective entries and arguments in Evidence A or Evidence Nos. 1-4, 13, and 14, as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, regarding KRW 97,824,816, out of the instant construction price claim against the Defendant Partnership Corporation (third obligor) of the Plaintiff (debtor), the Suwon District Court 2017TTT7802, which was requested by the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, was seized.