beta
Text
1. All appeals filed by the Plaintiff and the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by each party.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment is as follows: (a) adding the judgment of the court of first instance as to the main defense made by Defendant C at the appellate court; and (b) citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance as to the main defense as set forth in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the dismissal or addition of part
2. As to Defendant C’s main defense of safety, Defendant C received a seizure and collection order against KRW 76,571,730 of the amount stated in the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C by designating the Plaintiff as the obligor and Defendant C as the garnishee, Defendant C, and accordingly, Defendant C asserts to the purport that the part equivalent to the above amount of the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it loses the Plaintiff’s standing to be a party. (ii) The obligee applying for a provisional seizure or seizure order against the claim should clarify the type and amount of the claim to be seized in the application (Articles 225 and 291 of the Civil Execution Act). In particular, when applying for a seizure order only against the part of the claim to be seized, the scope should be specified.
(Civil Execution Rule (Articles 159(1)3 and 218). Nevertheless, in cases where a creditor’s application for provisional seizure or seizure does not specify the subject and scope of the claims to be seized and where the claims to be seized are not specified in the decision of provisional seizure or seizure order (hereinafter “decision of seizure, etc.”) due to failure to specify the subject and scope of the claims to be seized, the effect of seizure, etc. does not take place, etc.
This legal doctrine has several claims against a third-party obligor, and is equally applied to cases where a creditor files an application for seizure, etc. on the whole of his/her claims. In such a case, the creditor must clearly specify what the creditor files an application for seizure, etc. within the scope of one of the multiple claims, in itself.
The object and scope of seizure shall not be specified.