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

Cheong-gu Office

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 18,956,730 won with 5% interest per annum from June 27, 2016 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 15% interest per annum from the next day to the day of complete payment.

A. On November 4, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a payment order against DD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DD") with the Suwon District Court 2000 tea 000,000, and issued a payment order to the effect that "DD will pay to the Plaintiff the price for the goods at KRW 476,046,000 from the above court and its delay damages." The above payment order became final and conclusive around that time.

B. DD transferred KRW 2 billion out of the price claim for the goods to HH Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HH”) on September 26, 201, and HH transferred the said claim to KK (hereinafter “K”) on November 1, 2011.

C. On January 31, 2012, sss, upon which other creditors of DD receive seizure, provisional seizure, and collection and assignment order based on DD’s claim against DD’s Ss, deposited KRW 1,367,245,000 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) with the Suwon District Court on January 31, 2012.

D. On December 3, 2012, HH and KK, the assignee of the claim, revoked all of the instant assignment of claims, and notified ss of the said revocation. On December 31, 2012, HH and KK submitted the said notice, etc. to the said court in Suwon District Court 2012Tho7065.

E. On February 23, 2016, in the case of the distribution procedure for the instant deposit, the said court rendered a decision not to accept the report of the cause of deposit on the ground that: (a) the attachment or provisional attachment after the assignment of claims made by other creditors with respect to the instant claim for the price of the goods was entirely null and void, barring such circumstances as where the said assignment of claims becomes null and void from the beginning; and (b) the attachment or provisional attachment after the assignment of claims is deemed null and void; and (c) the relevant collection order or assignment order based thereon was null and void.

F. On June 13, 2016, the Plaintiff: (a) filed an application with the Suwon District Court 2016TY 2000, which issued a seizure and assignment order on the claim for the release of deposited goods; (b) issued a seizure and assignment order on June 15, 2016; and (c) served on the Defendant on June 17, 2016; and (d) served on the Defendant on July 14, 2016.

G. Meanwhile, DDR failed to pay KRW 188,956,730, such as value-added tax, and on November 29, 2012, the Defendant seized the amount of money until the delinquent amount of national taxes, among the claims for payment of deposit money held by DDR against Suwon District Court, until the delinquent amount of national taxes, and the above notification of seizure was served to Suwon District Court on December 10, 2012.

H. During the distribution procedure of Suwon District Court 2016TT Co., Ltd. 200, which was based on the deposit in the instant case, the said court proceeded with the distribution procedure on June 27, 2016. The Defendant received dividends of KRW 188,956,730 as a person holding the first priority distribution (a person holding the attachment). The Defendant received total amount of claims, total amount of claims, total amount of claims of KRW 00,000 as a person holding the second priority distribution, and total amount of claims of KRW 147,978,262, out of total amount of claims of KRW 534,704,084 as a person holding the third priority distribution (wholly), and the Defendant received dividends of KRW 147,978,262 as a person holding the first priority distribution right.

Facts without any dispute, Gap's 1 through 13 (including virtual numbers), Eul's 1, 2, and 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Around December 10, 2012, when the defendant seized the above and the above notification of seizure was served to a deposit official of 00 district court, a garnishee, the debtor, the seizure did not exist in DDR. As such, the above seizure is null and void as it covers a non-existent claim, and the amount of KRW 188,956,730 distributed to the defendant in the above distribution procedure should be returned to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

B. Determination

On November 29, 2012, the Defendant seized the amount of money until the delinquent amount of national taxes is in arrears among the claims for payment of deposit funds held by DDD against 00 District Court on November 29, 2012. The above notification of seizure was served on Suwon District Court on December 10, 2012, and HH and KK revoked all of the above assignment contracts on December 3, 2012. As seen earlier, the Defendant’s seized claims are claims for payment of deposit funds to DD’s Suwon District Court, and the above notification of seizure was served to 00 District Court. Thus, it cannot be deemed that there was no seized claims until the time when the notification of seizure was served to 00 District Court.

Also, in light of the fact that it is difficult to see whether there is a seized claim or not as a matter of validity of an assignment of claim, and that even if the cancellation of each of the above assignment of claim is a re-transfer of claim, there is no reason to see it differently. As long as the above assignment of claim is revoked by HH and KK after the above notification of attachment, even if the notification was made after the above notification of attachment, it cannot be deemed that there was no claim subject to attachment at the time of the above notification of attachment.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim on a different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

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