Of the above, the part on Defendant B and Defendant DSIB and Defendant DSD.

1. As to the grounds of appeal by Defendant DED Co., Ltd., the lower court determined that the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is limited to KRW 16,61,463 on October 28, 2008, since the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment was served on Defendant DED Co., Ltd. on October 28, 2008, rather than the first attachment by the head of the Seocho Tax Office, but the first attachment by the head of Seocho Tax Office was earlier than the second attachment, and the first attachment by the head of Seocho Tax Office became effective earlier than the second attachment. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal is with merit within the scope of the above amount.

Examining the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to the national preferential right.

2. As to the Defendants’ grounds of appeal, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ respective claims on the grounds that, as the Defendants, the third obligor of the seizure and collection order of this case, deposited the money that the first instance judgment ordered the Defendants to pay and the damages for delay on the ground that the amount of the claims subject to the seizure and collection order of this case deposited the Defendants, the Defendants’ obligations were extinguished by repayment within the scope of the amount deposited for execution. However, the lower court rejected the Defendants’ respective claims on the grounds that, inasmuch as the third obligor’s deposit for execution was valid under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the entire amount corresponding to the seized obligation should be deposited.

However, even if the effect of the deposit for execution is not recognized because the garnishee of the seizure and collection order did not deposit the total amount of the obligation, if the dividend procedure is completed due to the execution of the deposited money after the deposit is accepted, the repayment of the deposited money shall be effective.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da91385 Decided July 24, 2014, etc.). Records are recorded.