1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is a person who engages in the wholesale business of main material in the name of “C” in the old group B in the Gyeongbuk-gun, North Korea, and has a claim for the purchase price of goods against TSmers Co., Ltd.

B. On August 31, 2016, the Defendant supplied goods from TS-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-S-PP

C. The Plaintiff filed an application with the Daegu District Court for a payment order of 2016 teas 5672 against TSmers Co., Ltd., and filed an application for provisional attachment against the Defendant of TSmers Co., Ltd. for the claim amounting to KRW 40 million against the claim amounting to KRW 40 million.

On September 9, 2016, the provisional attachment order 2016Kadan50709 was served on September 12, 2016 on September 12, 2016 to the defendant, who is the garnishee 9:57 A. D.

On September 27, 2016, the Plaintiff was issued a collection order for the transfer of the provisional seizure of 2016TTT 3229, October 4, 2016, with the title of execution of the final payment order, to the main seizure.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. Since the Plaintiff’s decision on provisional seizure of the Plaintiff’s claim was served on September 12, 2016 on the Defendant, the Defendant cannot assert the effect of paying the price of goods to ESmers Co., Ltd. upon receipt of the provisional seizure order, and the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 40 million upon receipt of the seizure and collection order within the scope of the amount of goods payment liability owed by the Defendant to ESmers Co., Ltd.

B. On September 9, 2016, prior to the Plaintiff’s receipt of the provisional seizure order, the Defendant issued an electronic credit sales bond and paid all the goods price by issuing the electronic credit sales bond on September 12, 2016, with the maturity set on September 12, 2016.

3. According to the statement No. 1 of the judgment and the fact-finding results on the Han Bank, the defendant is a stock company according to the whole purport of the pleadings.