Han-il loan Co., Ltd.

Korean Bank, Inc.

April 3, 2013

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2012Gaso69675 Decided November 14, 2012

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

1. Purport of claim

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7,204,910 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the day of service of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

2. Purport of appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under one of the following order for payment shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 7,201,690 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

The plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order against the third debtor's deposit claims against the defendant as shown below.

Non-party 1 Daegu District Court 2012T. 46.26.4, 4592, 578, 078, 011-2390, 201-3, 448, 84901-2390, 201-2390, 201-2390, 201-2397, 201-2307, 4731, 500, 500, 60, 500, 6731, 50, 67474, 37474, 200, 2012 others, 2047474, 305, 207, 205, 207, 147, 207, 305, 207, 2014

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry (including a serial number) in Gap1 through 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the money to the obligor’s deposit claims based on the above seizure and collection order, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the money to be collected within the scope of the prohibited seizure claim is unreasonable.

In a lawsuit for collection, the existence of a claim subject to collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is proved to the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). Thus, the plaintiff cannot seize the amount exceeding 1.5 million won, which is a deposit claim subject to the prohibition of seizure, pursuant to Article 246 subparagraph 8 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act, unless the third debtor has a duty to investigate the effect of the seizure order and has trusted and repaid it to the creditor without negligence (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). Thus, the third debtor can file an immediate appeal against the seizure order, so that the defendant, the third debtor, must prove that he is the claim subject to the prohibition of seizure, cannot be accepted).

Therefore, inasmuch as the Plaintiff did not prove otherwise that the part below 1.5 million won per obligor does not constitute a claim to prohibit seizure, or that there was money which was not seized pursuant to Article 195 subparag. 3 of the Civil Execution Act, among the balance of the above claims subject to seizure and collection, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 3,220 won exceeding 1.5 million won per annum of the deposit claim to be prohibited from seizure (=45 won per annum against Nonparty 1 + 674 won per annum of the collection amount to Nonparty 2 + 343 won per annum of the collection amount to Nonparty 3 + 1,758 won per annum of the collection amount to Nonparty 5) from August 11, 2012, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, to dispute about the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation to perform, until November 14, 2012, the following day of the first instance judgment of this case, to 20% per annum of the damages for delay.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. The judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge 50, 000,000,000