logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2020.07.02 2019나15892
양수금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. We examine ex officio the legality of the instant lawsuit on the determination of the legality of the instant lawsuit.

If a seizure and collection order is issued for a claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

(2) In light of the above legal principles, a seizure order shall take effect when it is served on a garnishee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008; 2009Da85717, Feb. 25, 2010). Meanwhile, since the effect of the seizure order is limited to subordinate rights, if seizure is effected only on principal claims, the effect of seizure shall naturally extend to the interest or delay damages incurred after the validity thereof takes effect, and shall not extend to the interest or delay damages incurred before the effectiveness thereof (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2013Da1587, May 28, 2015). However, in cases where a third obligor has indicated the amount to be paid to a debtor as the seized claim, the claim under the substantive law, which is the object of the lawsuit, becomes subject of seizure and collection order under the substantive law, and ultimately, it shall affect the obligee’s claims and the subject matter of the collection order.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da40444, Apr. 28, 2011; 2016Da203056, Jun. 28, 2018). Furthermore, in cases where a debtor files a claim for the interest or delay damages incurred prior to seizure in the said lawsuit, the relevant part shall also have the effect of seizure.

In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 1 and the purport of the entire argument, C Co., Ltd., the Plaintiff’s creditor, as the Ulsan District Court 2019TT14628, Dec. 19, 2019, which was after the judgment of the first instance, was rendered, 47,467.

arrow