All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. Since the transferor of a claim before setting up a counterclaim after the assignment of claim is still in the status of creditor in relation to the debtor, preservation measures, such as provisional seizure of claims against the garnishee may be taken against the garnishee. In this case, if the transferor of a claim has received the distribution in the distribution procedure based on provisional seizure of claims, it is reasonable to deem

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Du20109 Decided February 12, 2009, etc.). B.

According to the records of this case, the following facts are revealed.

1) The defendant is the defendant's successor intervenor around December 2006 (hereinafter " successor intervenor").

(C) The Intervenor Intervenor Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”)

2) As to the transfer of the right to benefit (hereinafter “instant transfer of claim”) and the transfer of the right to benefit (hereinafter “instant transfer of claim”).

(2) On May 16, 2008, the Defendant completed provisional seizure of claim amounting to KRW 16,591,634,423 against H Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “H”) under the trust agreement, when the assignment of claims was not notified by the instant assignment contract, the Defendant and the successor intervenor agreed to perform the Defendant after the alteration of the name on the certificate of beneficial rights and the assignment of claims was completed by the said certificate of beneficial rights.

3) On the other hand, H deposited the remaining amount to be paid to C as a result of the disposal and settlement of real estate held in trust, which is KRW 5,349,04,29,291, and on the ground that there exist multiple claims, provisional seizure, claim seizure, and collection order, etc., on June 18, 2009, the said remaining amount was deposited as 10716 in Seoul Central District Court G District Court in 2009. 4) The distribution procedure was commenced for the said deposited amount (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”), and the instant distribution procedure was initiated as Seoul Central District Court G.