The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Whether the interruption of prescription by a judicial claim filed by the debtor affects the collection obligee;

A. Even if there exists a seizure and collection order against the monetary claim against the debtor against the third party debtor, this is merely granting the collection obligee the right to collect the seized claim, and this does not result in the transfer or transfer of the claim against the third party debtor to the collection obligee.

Therefore, in case where, after an obligor filed a lawsuit claiming the performance of a monetary claim against a third party obligor, the obligee received a seizure and collection order against the said monetary claim, and the obligee filed a lawsuit for collection against a third party obligor, the interruption of prescription, which the obligor serves as the subject of rights, extends to a kind of collection institution, which is granted the ability to collect the seized claim according to the authorization of the execution court, and is also subject to collection of the claim

Meanwhile, a judicial claim does not have the effect of interrupting prescription in the case of dismissal, dismissal or withdrawal of a lawsuit, but in such case, if a judicial claim, intervention in bankruptcy proceedings, seizure or provisional seizure, or provisional disposition is rendered within six months, the period of prescription shall be deemed to have been interrupted by the first judicial claim (Article 170 of the Civil Act). Therefore, even if a lawsuit claiming the performance of a monetary claim filed by an obligor against a third obligor against the third obligor is dismissed as the party standing becomes void due to the seizure and collection order, if the collection obligee who acquired the standing as a party standing in lieu of the obligor during the course of the above performance lawsuit, files a lawsuit claiming collection against the third obligor within six months from the date the above dismissal ruling became final and conclusive, it is reasonable to view that the interruption of prescription arising

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted by the lower court are as follows.