beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order for the payment order issued on March 20, 2018 at the Incheon District Court Branch of the Incheon District Court with respect to C on March 20, 2018.
Reasons
1. In full view of the facts alleged in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 3, 2, 3, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9, 1, 6-1, 2, and 7-1, and 7-4 of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, 3, 2, 5, 8, 9, and 6-1, 6-2 of the evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire argument, the facts of the grounds for the claim stated in the separate sheet and the fact that the defendant alleged that
2. The lawsuit of demurrer by the third party is applicable to the execution against all property rights. Thus, in case where there exists a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, if the third party, other than the execution debtor, was de facto impaired due to the above seizure, etc. in the exercise of his/her monetary claim as the true creditor, he/she may file a lawsuit of demurrer against the execution creditor by asserting that such claim reverts to himself/herself.
Since the order of seizure between the person who has executed an order of seizure on the same claim as the assignee of the claim shall be determined by the notification of the transfer of claim with a fixed date and the order of seizure after the arrival to the third obligor of the order of seizure, the attachment made by other creditors of the garnishee after the notification of the assignment of claim with a fixed date to the third obligor is void.
According to the above facts, the assignment of the claim of this case is not limited to the payment of wages, but it is valid as it is for the payment of wages. The seizure and collection order of this case are already transferred and it is invalid as to the claim subject to the transfer of the claim of this case which satisfies the requisites for counterclaim
As the plaintiff is a legitimate transferee of his/her claim, the plaintiff is practically disabled by the seizure of the defendant in exercising his/her claim (on April 27, 2018, the effective date). Therefore, the compulsory execution stipulated in paragraph (1) of the defendant's order shall be rejected.
The assignment of claims of this case would prejudice many creditors.