beta
Text
The judgment below
The part against the Defendants is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. Where another creditor has seized, seized, seized, or demanded a distribution with respect to the monetary claim until the assignment order is served on the garnishee, the assignment order shall not become effective;
(Article 229(5) of the Civil Execution Act and Article 229(5) of the same Act, where two or more claims attachment and assignment orders are issued for the same claim at the same time to a third party obligor, an assignment order shall be effective on the basis of whether the sum of each claims attachment exceeds the amount of the seized claim. If the former beneficiary exceeds the latter, that assignment order shall be null and void on the ground that all claims attachment and assignment orders are issued in competition.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da68839 delivered on July 26, 2002). 2. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveals the following facts. A.
H on January 13, 2009, as indicated in the lower judgment, transferred KRW 1.2 billion out of KRW 2,241,841,952 to B of the claim for payment of the instant deposit.
B. (1) Subsequent to the claim for the payment of the deposit of this case, the Z shall be subject to the order of seizure and assignment of each claim against the amount of KRW 2009,000,000,000,000,000 from the Seosan District Court of Daejeon on November 9, 2009, for the amount of KRW 2009,000,0000,0000,000 from the same support on November 9, 2009, 2009, the amount of KRW 388,000,000,000,000,000 won from the same support on November 10, 209, and KRW 95,00,000,000 from the 2009,000,0000,000 won. hereinafter the above order of seizure and assignment shall be referred to as "each assignment order of this case" in the same order.
(2) On November 11, 2009, the assignment order of the first and second assignment order of this case was simultaneously served on the Republic of Korea, which is a debtor, and the assignment order of this case was served on November 12, 2009 on the following day.
C. From November 23, 2010 to December 8, 2010, H transferred the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit to the Defendants, and around that time, the notice of each transfer was issued to the deposit officials of the Republic of Korea.
3...