beta
Text
1. The part against Defendant C in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant C shall be dismissed.
3...
Reasons
1. We examine, ex officio, whether the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is legitimate or not.
If there exists a seizure and collection order against the 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 purport of the evidence No. 207Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008) and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff on Nov. 23, 2015, when the lawsuit of this case is pending, designated the Plaintiff as the obligor, Defendant C, the third obligor, and the seized claim as “amounting to KRW 718,526,406, out of the claims based on the judgment of the first instance and the trial of this case that the Plaintiff would receive from the Defendant C, and received the seizure and collection order (subsan District Court 2016TT26382), and it can be recognized that the above seizure and collection order reached the Defendant C around that time.
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff lost the standing to file a performance suit against Defendant C regarding the claim of this case, which is the claim of this case subject to seizure.
Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C is unlawful.
2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B
A. 1) The status of the party is as a representative director D for the purpose of the wholesale business of home appliances and parts, and the actual operator is E. The defendant B is the second floor building on the F of the Gangseo-gu Busan Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant building”).
G (hereinafter referred to as “G”)
[H] and H (hereinafter “H”)
(2) On January 22, 2010, the Plaintiff decided to acquire the above businesses of Defendant B between Defendant B and the vice head of G and H, and Defendant C was a vice head of G and H in the name of H. (2) The conclusion of the instant transfer agreement is difficult.