1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. As to the instant lawsuit seeking payment against the Defendant by virtue of the seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserts that, inasmuch as the Plaintiff’s creditor received a seizure and collection order against the Defendant, the Plaintiff lost the Plaintiff’s eligibility to seek the performance of the claim for return of the deposited money against the Defendant, since the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, which was the Plaintiff’s creditor, obtained a seizure and collection order against the Defendant, as the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant deposited money against the Defendant was seized.

Even if there was a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, it is nothing more than the realization of the realization disposition in the procedure of compulsory execution because it merely gives the creditor the right to collect the monetary claim against the garnishee in the procedure of compulsory execution, and it does not transfer or belong to the creditor of the creditor of the claim against the third debtor. Thus, such collection right is of the nature that it cannot be seized because it does not directly dispose of it and realize it (see Supreme Court Decision 88Da3465, Dec. 13, 198). Therefore, the provisional attachment decision on such collection right has no effect, and even if it was judged in favor of the creditor by exercising the right of collection in the course of the lawsuit, it also belongs to the collection right, so the provisional attachment decision on the monetary claim is not effective as a provisional attachment for the collection right.

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da54300 Decided March 14, 1997). According to the evidence No. 12-1 and No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 12, the fact that the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund received the Plaintiff’s instant judgment claim against the Defendant as the seized claim on December 9, 2015, the Busan District Court Decision 2015TTT544 Decided December 9, 2015, which was the judgment of the court of first instance, and delivered it to the Defendant upon receiving the seizure and collection order, but it is the seized claim.