2. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiffs, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

In accordance with the claim that changed from the trial to the preliminary one, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 150,000,000, and the amount of KRW 100,000,000 and each of the above amounts of KRW 20% per annum from October 12, 2013 to August 28, 2015, and the amount of KRW 5% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

3. All remaining appeals by the plaintiffs and the defendant are dismissed.

4. 1/2 of the total costs of litigation shall be borne by the Plaintiffs, and the remainder by the Defendant.

5. The portion of payment of the amount under paragraph (2) may be provisionally executed.

A. The primary purport of the claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 an amount of 226,684,931 won, 140,575,342 won, and 20% per annum for each of the above amounts to the plaintiff 1's public interest, from the day following the service of a copy of the request for change of claim and the cause of claim on December 18, 2014 to the day of complete payment (the plaintiff added the cause of claim for full payment to the plaintiff 1 (the non-party 1)'s claim against the defendant on the ground that all of the claims against the non-party 1 (the non-party 1) were received at the trial, and changed to the conjunctive cause of claim for the payment of the previous amount of acquisition).

B. Preliminary purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1 the amount of KRW 150 million, KRW 100 million, KRW 100 million, and KRW 20% per annum to the plaintiff 1 from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment (the defendant was changed from the trial to the preliminary claim).

2. Purport of appeal

A. The plaintiffs

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The same shall apply to the foregoing “preliminary claim”.

B. Defendant

The judgment of the first instance is revoked. The plaintiffs' claim is dismissed (the first instance court accepted the defendant's offset defense and dismissed all the plaintiffs' claim, and the defendant appealed against the plaintiffs in order to dispute that the claim for acquiring the claim does not exist).

A. A claim for division of property against the Defendant by Nonparty 1

1) On May 27, 2009, Nonparty 1 filed a lawsuit against the Defendant seeking divorce and division of property, etc. against the Seoul Family Court 2009Dhap4725, and on August 13, 2009, the Defendant filed a counterclaim against Nonparty 1 seeking divorce and consolation money, etc. (hereinafter “instant divorce lawsuit”).

2) With respect to the instant divorce lawsuit on June 1, 201, the Seoul Family Court shall pay to Nonparty 1 the amount calculated by applying the rate of 5% per annum from July 11, 2009 to June 1, 201, and 20% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment. ③ The Defendant shall pay to Nonparty 1 the amount calculated by applying the rate of 565 million won as division of property and 5% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment. ④ The Defendant may order Nonparty 1 to pay the child support to Nonparty 1 in the past of the principal of the instant case and the child support from April 21, 201 to the end of each month, respectively. < Amended by Act No. 10558, Apr. 21, 2011>

3) As to the judgment of the first instance, both Nonparty 1 and the Defendant were dissatisfied with, and the Seoul High Court appealed 201Reuu1682 (principal lawsuit) and 1699 (Counterclaim), the Seoul High Court sentenced on November 8, 2012 that “The part of the judgment of the first instance, among the judgment, shall be changed to the Defendant to pay to Nonparty 1 the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from the day following the day on which the judgment became final and conclusive to the day of full payment, and the remaining appeal of Nonparty 1 and the Defendant’s appeal are all dismissed” (hereinafter the above judgment of the appellate court is referred to as “the judgment of this case,” and the claim against the Defendant against Nonparty 1, who ordered payment in the judgment of this case (including the judgment of the first instance), shall be referred to as “the claim of this case”).

4) On March 28, 2013, Nonparty 1 and the Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court Decision 2012Meu5245 (principal lawsuit) and 5252 (Counterclaim). On March 28, 2013, the Supreme Court rendered a judgment dismissing all appeals on the grounds that “Nonindicted 1 and the Defendant’s assertion in the grounds of appeal constitutes Article 4 of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal,” and the said judgment was delivered respectively to Nonparty 1 and the Defendant on April 2, 2013.

B. Borrowing the money of Nonparty 1 and transferring the bonds of this case

1) On August 31, 2012, Nonparty 1 borrowed KRW 100 million from Plaintiff 1 at an annual interest rate of 30%, and on December 13, 2012, Nonparty 1 transferred KRW 150 million out of the judgment amount claim of this case to Plaintiff 1 by means of a security or repayment for repayment with respect to the said loan obligation. Nonparty 1 notified the Defendant of the fact of transfer on December 13, 2012, and the said notification reached the Defendant on December 18, 2012.

2) On January 7, 2013, Nonparty 1 borrowed KRW 100 million at the interest rate of 30% per annum from the Plaintiff Drar Public Corporation (hereinafter “Plaintiff Dr Public Corporation”). On the same day, in relation to the above loan obligation, Nonparty 1 transferred KRW 100 million out of the judgment amount to Plaintiff Dr Public Corporation by means of security or repayment for repayment. Nonparty 1 notified the Defendant of the above transfer on January 9, 2013. Nonparty 1 notified the above transfer to the Defendant on the same day (hereinafter “instant transfer of claim”), and the above notification was delivered to the Defendant on the same day (hereinafter “instant transfer of claim”), and the assigned claim refers to “the instant transfer of claim,” and both are referred to as “the instant transfer of claim,” and all of them are referred to as “the instant transfer of claim”).

C. Settlement agreement, etc. on the claim of this case between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant

1) On April 8, 2013, the Defendant: (a) filed a claim amounting to KRW 1.187.89 million with Nonparty 1 (i) KRW 250 million in total; (b) KRW 145 million in the amount of subrogated payment and interest of the National Bank; (c) KRW 114 million in the amount of non-party 1 transferred by the Defendant’s father; (d) KRW 51 million in the amount of enforcement on construction; (e) KRW 20 million in the amount of unpaid public charges; (vi) KRW 15 million in the amount of enforcement on the first floor; and (vii) KRW 30 million in the amount of removal on the first floor; (h) KRW 140 million in the amount of restoration expenses on the first floor; and (i) KRW 150 million in the amount of offset against Nonparty 1; and (i) KRW 700 million in the amount of unjust enrichment on the account of Nonparty 1’s automatic fraud; and (i) KRW 17500 million in the amount of the amount of the claim.

2) On May 9, 2013, Nonparty 1 and the Defendant agreed to the settlement of each other’s claim and obligation, “The final settlement of the instant judgment amounting to KRW 700 million by taking into account all the Defendant’s claim and the instant judgment amount claims.” On the same day, the Defendant prepared and delivered to Nonparty 1 a letter containing the details of the settlement and agreement (hereinafter “instant letter”). The content of the instant letter is as follows.

The Defendant in the main text and Nonparty 1 agree as follows: (a) deposit of KRW 349,00,000 with the account of Nonparty 2 (Defendant and Nonparty 1’s children) on January 2, 200; (b) deposit of KRW 301,00,000 with the designated account of Nonparty 1; and (c) deposit of KRW 300,000 with the full payment of KRW 4,000. (d) On May 9, 2013, the agreement shall take effect only at the time of the full payment of KRW 40,000 (e.g., the withdrawal of the lawsuit). By May 15, 2013, the payment of KRW 10,000 is scheduled to be made in cash of KRW 5,00,000

3) Pursuant to paragraph (4) of the instant letter, the Defendant paid KRW 40 million to Nonparty 1 on May 9, 2013, and KRW 7 million on May 11, 2013, respectively (the partial amount of KRW 10 million as indicated in paragraph (4) of the instant letter). On May 15, 2013, the Defendant deposited KRW 349 million into Nonparty 2’s account pursuant to paragraph (1) of the instant letter, and specified the details as a lump sum payment for childcare.

D. The attachment and assignment order, etc. on the judgment bond of this case upon the plaintiffs' request

1) Claim attachment and assignment order, etc. by Plaintiff 1

A) On December 6, 2012, Nonparty 1 drafted a notarial deed of money loan agreement (No. 187, 2012, a notary public) to the effect that Nonparty 1 recognized compulsory execution with respect to the debt owed to Plaintiff 1. The said notarial deed states that “Nonindicted 1 borrowed KRW 150 million from Plaintiff 1 on August 31, 2012 at an annual interest rate of 30%.”

B) On May 16, 2014, Plaintiff 1 applied for an order for the attachment and assignment of claims against “226,684,931 won as the sum of the principal and interest of the claim stated in the above notarial deed out of the judgment money claim” as Seoul Central District Court No. 2014TTT14235 on the basis of the above notarial deed.

C) On May 20, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court accepted the above application as it was, and issued an order for the attachment and assignment of claims against “26,684,931 won out of the judgment bond of this case.”

D) The above attachment and assignment order reached the Defendant on October 9, 2014, and reached Nonparty 1 on November 28, 2014, respectively, and became final and conclusive on December 6, 2014.

2) The claims attachment and assignment order, etc. of Plaintiff Drain Public Interest

A) On April 4, 2013, Nonparty 1 drafted a notarial deed under a money loan agreement (No. 249, 2013, a notary public law firm) to the effect that a compulsory execution is recognized with respect to the debt owed to Plaintiff D’s public service, as seen earlier. The said notarial deed states that “Nonindicted 1 borrowed KRW 100 million from Plaintiff D’s public service at an annual interest rate of 30%”.

B) On May 14, 2014, Plaintiff D’s public official applied for the attachment and assignment order of claims against “140,575,342 won in total of the principal and interest of the claim stated in the above Notarial Deed out of the judgment money claim” as Seoul Central District Court No. 2014TTT 14042 based on the original copy of the above No. 2014.

C) On May 16, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court accepted the above application as it was, and issued an order for the attachment and assignment of claims against “140,575,342 won out of the judgment bond of this case.”

D) On December 10, 2014, the above claim attachment and assignment order reached the Defendant on May 27, 2015, respectively, and reached Nonparty 1 on June 4, 2015 (hereinafter the above each claim attachment and assignment order collectively referred to as “each assignment order of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 7, 9 through 12, 18 through 20, Eul's each entry (including numbers in case of additional numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the main claim

A. The parties' assertion

1) Summary of the plaintiffs' assertion

Since the plaintiffs received each of the orders against the claim of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiffs the entire amount of money (226,684,931 won for the plaintiff 1, and 140,575,342 won for the plaintiff Rain Public Corporation) and damages for delay.

2) Summary of the defendant's assertion

According to the Plaintiffs’ assertion, each of the instant claims was issued at the time of the issuance of each of the instant assignment orders (the amount calculated by subtracting KRW 396 million paid by the Defendant under each of the instant orders from KRW 70 million settled and agreed upon through each of the instant orders). However, with respect to the instant claim before each of the instant assignment orders is served on the Defendant, the Defendant asserts that: ① the claim amount of KRW 125,744,458, and ② the claim amount of KRW 304,881,159, and ③ the claim amount of KRW 51,274,078, and the collection order was issued for each of the claims amount of KRW 51,400,000 at each of the instant orders issued by the same time. Accordingly, each of the instant assignment orders is invalid under the concurrence of the instant orders (the Plaintiff’s initial addition of the entire claims from the first instance court to the original claims, and the Defendant’s remainder of the claim cannot be considered to be identical to the original claim and the original assignment order.

B. Determination

1) Where another creditor with respect to an assignment order has made a seizure, provisional seizure, or demand for distribution with respect to the relevant monetary claim until the assignment order is served on the garnishee (Article 229(5) of the Civil Execution Act). Meanwhile, in cases where two or more claims are issued with respect to the same claim, whether the relevant assignment order becomes null and void due to the concurrence of seizure should be determined on the basis of whether the total sum of the seizure amount of each relevant seizure order exceeds the amount of the seized claim. The standard point for determining whether such concurrent seizure, etc. exists is when the assignment order was served on the garnishee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 68839, Jul. 26, 2002; 95Da4681, Sept. 26, 1995).

2) We examine the instant case in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine.

As seen earlier, Nonparty 1 and the Defendant settled the instant claim amounting to KRW 700 million on May 9, 2013, and the Defendant paid KRW 396 million in total to Nonparty 1 from May 9, 2013 to May 15, 2013 in accordance with each of the instant orders (i.e., KRW 40 million + KRW 7 million + KRW 349 million). As such, at the time each of the instant orders was issued, Nonparty 1 and the Defendant paid the instant claim amounting to KRW 340 million.

However, according to the facts found above, the sum of the seizure amount of each of the assignment orders of this case (the first assignment order of this case is the part of the assignment order of this case) is KRW 367,260,273 (i.e., KRW 226,684,931 + KRW 140,575,342), which is the amount of the seized claim of each of the assignment orders of this case, exceeds KRW 340 million, and the above seizure was already made before each of the assignment orders of this case is served to the defendant who is the garnishee.

Ultimately, even without considering the amount of seizure of each of the claims asserted by the Defendant, each of the instant assignment orders is deemed null and void due to the competition of seizure. Therefore, the Plaintiffs’ assertion that seeks payment of the entire amount in accordance with the assignment order cannot be accepted.

3. Determination on the conjunctive claim

A. Determination on the plaintiffs' assertion (the grounds of claim)

As seen earlier, as Nonparty 1 transferred part of the judgment bond of this case to the Plaintiffs, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 1 KRW 150 million to Plaintiff 1 and damages for delay with respect to each of the above amounts.

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) As to the argument that each of the claims in this case is defective

A) Summary of the Defendant’s assertion

(1) The right to claim division of property arises only as a legal effect at the time of divorce, and it cannot be deemed that specific rights have been created since the scope and contents of the right are unclear and unclear until the specific contents of the claim are formed through consultation or adjudication. Of the amount ordered to be paid to the Defendant in the instant judgment, KRW 1,000,000,000, out of the amount ordered to be paid to Nonparty 1’s claim for division of property. Of the instant judgment, the part corresponding to the above amount among the claim for judgment in this case was created and specifically finalized only on April 2, 2013 when the instant judgment became final and conclusive on March 28, 2013 (the Defendant asserted that the instant judgment was erroneous and conclusive on March 28, 2013, but as seen earlier, the instant judgment became final and conclusive on April 2, 2013 pursuant to Article 5(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure for Appeal, and thus, the Defendant’s assertion as to the date of final and conclusive judgment was not specific or impossible.

(2) The instant assignment of claims was made on the condition that the claim for division of property of Nonparty 1 is established, and as seen earlier, Nonparty 1’s claim for division of property was established on April 2, 2013. As such, the instant assignment of claims ought to be deemed effective on April 2, 2013 when the said condition is fulfilled. However, the instant assignment of claims was made on December 18, 2012 or January 9, 2013 prior to the fulfillment of the said condition, namely, prior to the occurrence of the effect of each of the instant claims. Accordingly, the instant assignment of claims falls under the so-called “prior notification (the assignment of claims prior to the effect of the assignment of claims).”

B) Determination

(1) As to the assertion that the instant judgment claim is unspecified, etc.

In a case where the basic claim relationship at the time of the transfer becomes final and conclusive to a certain extent, and where it is expected to be considerably expected that the right will be specified and that it will occur in the near future, the transfer may be made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da96069, Apr. 8, 2010). Furthermore, in the assignment of claims, if it is possible to recognize the identity of the claim by distinguishing the claim subject to the transfer from other claim in terms of social norms, the claim should be deemed to be specified. Even if the claim amount of the claim subject to the transfer at the time of the transfer of claims is not determined, if the standard is established to determine the claim amount by the time when the obligation is due, the transfer of the claim shall be deemed valid (see, e.g.

In light of the above legal principles, it is reasonable to view that the claim of this case, which is the claim of this case, for the purpose of the transfer of each of the claim of this case, was the final fact-finding court's order to pay it. ② The judgment of the Supreme Court was rendered on March 28, 2013, which was about 3 to 4 months after the transfer of each of the claim of this case. Ultimately, the claim of this case was finalized on April 2, 2013. ③ The scope of the claim of this case is clearly determined by the judgment of this case and its identity can be distinguished from other claims. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the claim of this case is a claim of this case, which is the purpose of the transfer of each of the claim of this case, becomes final and conclusive to a certain extent, and it is possible to specify its basic claim and that it is expected to occur in the near future. Accordingly, this part of the claim of this case cannot be accepted.

(2) Regarding the assertion of advance notice

Even if the claim of this case was a kind of future claim at the time of the assignment of each of the instant claims, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as having been conducted on a conditional basis as alleged by the Defendant (the Defendant asserted this part of the claim with citing a specific domestic literature. The Defendant’s argument that the pertinent part of the instant claim was constituted as a “Conditional assignment” in relation to the validity of the assignment of future claims was in the past, but it is apparent that one of the difficult points was “the so-called “the prior notification is prohibited,” and that the assignment of future claims is a conditional juristic act.” Therefore, it is difficult to accept the Defendant’s argument on a different premise.

2) Determination as to the assertion on the transfer of the claim for the transfer of the instant amount to a third party upon subrogation of the payer

A) Summary of the Defendant’s assertion

(1) On August 31, 2012, a limited liability law firm (hereinafter “law firm Purmer”) jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of KRW 100 million against Plaintiff 1 by Nonparty 1. Nonparty 1 paid KRW 9 million to Plaintiff 1 as interest on March 2013, and the law firm Purmera paid KRW 50 million to Plaintiff 1 on July 15, 2013 and August 14, 2015, respectively. Meanwhile, Nonparty 1 transferred the instant credit to Plaintiff 1 was to secure the repayment of the said loan.

(2) As a person who has a legitimate interest in jointly and severally paying the above loan debt owed by Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1, the law firm Purmer has repaid the above loan debt. Accordingly, in accordance with the legal subrogation under Articles 481 and 482(1) of the Civil Act, pursuant to the legal doctrine of statutory subrogation as stipulated under Articles 481 and 482(1) of the Civil Act, Plaintiff 1, as well as Plaintiff 1’s claim for the above loan loan to Nonparty 1, who sought payment from the instant conjunctive claim, was transferred to Purmer. Ultimately, Plaintiff 1 was not a right holder of the claim for the transfer money, and thus, Plaintiff 1 cannot respond to Plaintiff 1’s claim.

B) Determination

In full view of the aforementioned evidence and the written evidence No. 20, the entire purport of the pleadings, i.e., the law firm Purmer jointly and severally guaranteed the loan of KRW 100 million against Plaintiff 1 on August 31, 2012, and ii) the law firm Purmer paid KRW 50 million to Plaintiff 1 on July 15, 2013 and August 14, 2015, respectively, for the repayment of the loan of KRW 100 million. In addition, Nonparty 1 transferred the loan of this case to Plaintiff 1 by means of a security or repayment for the repayment of the loan of this case. This is as seen earlier.

According to the above facts of recognition, since Pumer paid the above loan to the plaintiff 1 by the law firm on behalf of the non-party 1, it may exercise the whole claim for the loan to the non-party 1 pursuant to Article 482 (1) of the Civil Code, or exercise the above loan claim in proportion to the amount of the loan repaid in accordance with Article 483 (1) of the Civil Code.

However, the claim of this case is separate from the claim of this case against the non-party 1, and it is not accompanied by the claim of this case to be transferred to Purma, law firm by statutory subrogation. Even if the claim of this case is practically intended to secure the repayment of the above loan, it is clear that it is not a "security right" as provided by the Civil Act, and thus, it does not constitute a "right to collateral" as provided by Article 482 (1) of the Civil Act. Therefore, the defendant's assertion of this part is not acceptable on the premise that the claim of this case was transferred to Purma law firm by subrogation as to the above loan of this case, under the premise that the claim of this case was transferred to Purma law firm, and it is merely an issue between the transferor and transferee, and it is not possible to accept the claim of this case between the plaintiff 1 and the non-party 1 as a collateral and the transferee regardless of the extinguishment of the obligation between the transferor and transferee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 199Do19699.

3) Determination on the grounds of offset

A) Summary of the Defendant’s assertion

(1) As seen earlier, around April 8, 2013, the Defendant expressed to Nonparty 1 the intention of offsetting the claim of this case with the claim for damages amounting to KRW 118,789,00,00,00, which had been possessed by Nonparty 1 prior to the notification of the transfer of each of the instant claims (the Defendant asserted as above through the response of October 23, 2013, which was stated at the date of the first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s first instance court’s second date, and the Defendant asserted that the amount of the claim of this case against Nonparty 1 is KRW 14,075,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won and KRW 1,137,734,508,000,000,000).

(2) Therefore, since the instant claim has ceased to exist by the declaration of intent of offset, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

B) Determination

(1) On April 8, 2013, the Defendant asserted that Nonparty 1 had a claim amounting to KRW 1.188,789,000,00,00, including the damages for the damage of a nominal lawsuit, against Nonparty 1, the Defendant sent a set-off notice to Nonparty 1, which contains a declaration of set-off against Nonparty 1’s Defendant’s claim amounting to KRW 1.770,000,000,000, as the automatic claim, by content-certified mail.

However, even if the Defendant, around April 8, 2013, held the claim against Nonparty 1 for damages amounting to KRW 118,789,00,00,00 as alleged, the Defendant already received notice of each of the instant claims assignment, so in order to extinguish the Plaintiffs’ claim for each of the instant claims for the instant amount by offset, the Defendant must make a declaration of offset against the Plaintiffs. However, since the Defendant expressed the intent of offset against Nonparty 1, it is difficult to accept the said claim without further need to examine.

(2) The Defendant asserted as above through the written response of October 23, 2013, and it is clear that the above written reply was made in the course of the attendance of the Plaintiffs’ legal representative on December 17, 2013, which is the date of the first instance trial, and thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is examined with the purport that “the claim against Nonparty 1 is offset against the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages, etc. with a total of KRW 1.18789,000,000,000,000,000,000 won, which were held against Nonparty 1.”

As seen earlier, around April 8, 2013, the Defendant expressed his/her intent to offset the claim of this case against the claim of this case by asserting the existence of the above automatic claim against the non-party 1. The non-party 1 and the defendant expressed his/her intent to offset the claim of this case by the above automatic claim. The non-party 1 and the defendant, in order to settle the claim of this case around May 9, 2013, after considering all the automatic claim of this case and the judgment claim of this case, finally settled and agreed on the claim of this case at KRW 70 million (the non-party 1 and the non-party 1 knew that the claim of this case was transferred at the time of this case, it is reasonable to view that the above settlement and agreement was reached by reflecting that some of the judgment claim of this case had already been transferred to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, since the above automatic claim of this case was extinguished by the settlement and agreement between the defendant and the non-party 1 as above, the defendant's assertion that it had not existed in relation to the defendant's claim of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, with respect to the money of KRW 150 million to Plaintiff 1 and KRW 100 million to Plaintiff Ra, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay at each rate of KRW 50 million per annum under the Civil Act until August 28, 2015, which is the date of the ruling of the party that deemed reasonable for the Defendant to dispute as to the existence of the obligation or the scope of the obligation, from October 12, 2013, following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to Plaintiff Ra and each of the above money.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' preliminary claim is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the plaintiff's primary claim and the remainder of the conjunctive claim are dismissed without merit. The court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiffs' claim added at the court of first instance, and the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's claim changed at the court of first instance in the court of first instance differently from the court of first instance. Thus, the part against the plaintiffs in the judgment of first instance that corresponds to the above amount, which is recognized at the court of first instance, is revoked and ordered to pay the above amount to the defendant. The plaintiffs' remaining appeal and the defendant'

[Attachment]

Judges Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Judge)