(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment on deemed confession: Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act;

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant D

A. The grounds for the plaintiff's claim are stated in the annexed sheet.

B. The specific scope of claims subject to seizure is, in principle, determined by the interpretation of the language and text stated in the “Indication of claims to be seized” of the decision, such as seizure.

However, it is necessary to protect a third-party obligor so that it does not have any excessive burden when understanding the claims or scope seized by the third-party obligor, as the third-party obligor is assigned to a legal dispute between others.

Therefore, the language and text of “indicating claims to be seized” should be objectively interpreted in accordance with the content of the language and text itself. If the meaning of the language and text is unclear, it is reasonable to impose disadvantages therefrom on the requesting creditor, such as seizure. As such, claims to which a third party obligor may have an doubt as to whether they include in understanding the language based on an average person with ordinary care should not be deemed to have been included in seizure, etc., barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da26296, Dec. 26, 2013; 2008Da9952, Feb. 10, 201). We examine the instant case in light of the foregoing legal doctrine.

According to Gap evidence No. 4, it is recognized that defendant D received a claim attachment and collection order against "the balance after deducting taxes and public charges from the salaries (this salary and allowances) received by the debtor from the third debtor," under this court No. 2013TT2062 by a notary public of F with an executory exemplification of 2013 No. 562 of the 2013 Document No. 562 of the 2013 Document.

The above seizure and collection order is indicated in the decision.