1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Basic Facts

The Plaintiff filed an application with the Gwangju District Court for the payment order against C and D for the payment order for the loan amounting to KRW 105,00,000 and KRW 20% per annum from June 30, 2011 to the date of full payment. The said payment order became final and conclusive on November 10, 2015.

(2) The Plaintiff, based on the original copy of the instant payment order, indicated in the phrase “the amount of claims to be seized and collected” in the phrase “the amount of claims to be seized and collected,” among all claims that C has against the Defendant (the entire amount of all claims, including the amount of all claims, which was created by C, sold and received in lieu of the name of the Defendant) around January 20, 2017, based on the original copy of the instant payment order with executory power.

Around January 25, 2017, upon receipt of a seizure and collection order against B (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”), the instant seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant, who is the garnishee, and became final and conclusive around that time.

[Based on recognition, the creditor who files an application for an order of seizure of claims as to Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the entire pleadings, shall specify the type and amount of claims to be seized (Article 225 of the Civil Execution Act). In particular, when applying for an order of seizure only for part of claims to be seized, the scope thereof should be specified

(Civil Execution Rule No. 159(1)3). Nevertheless, in a case where a seizure order does not specify the subject and scope of a claim to be seized when a creditor applies for a seizure, and the subject and scope of a claim to be seized are not specified in the seizure order, the seizure does not take effect on the seizure order.

This legal doctrine applies to the obligor.