1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) supplied the Defendant with water purifier strawing goods from July 201 to November 30, 2013, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 35,176,289 out of the price of the said goods.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant goods payment claim”) arising from the said goods supply transaction. B

On June 25, 2015, the Defendant filed a deposit of the said money with the Seoul Central District Court No. 13692 in accordance with Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act by asserting that the claim for the payment of the instant goods did not remain only KRW 10,171,39,000, and that the said money was deposited in accordance with Article 248(1) of the Seoul Central District Court Act, and the distribution procedure (Seoul District Court A) was in progress on September 24, 2015.

C. Meanwhile, on April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant seeking payment of KRW 35,176,289 of the instant goods price, but revised the purport of the claim by seeking payment of KRW 25,004,890 (=35,176,289 KRW 289,171,39) after deducting the amount deposited by the Defendant from the said goods price.

On December 22, 2015, New Daily Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s obligee, received a seizure and collection order as the Incheon District Court 2015TTTT 32,05,081 won from among the instant goods payment claim against the Plaintiff, from the Incheon District Court’s 2015TT 34642, and the above seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on December 28, 201.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Entry of Evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, and 19, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. If there exists a seizure and collection order concerning the claim to be determined as to the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit against the garnishee, and the debtor shall be deemed to lose the standing to file a lawsuit against the execution of the seized claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 9Da2388, Apr. 11, 200; 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008).