beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim Gap's evidence No. 1 and No. 4, the plaintiff received on November 29, 2016, the attachment and collection order (U.S. District Court 2016TTTT13104) against F's claim for refund of KRW 30,510,000 out of F's deposit deposit deposit against the defendant on the basis of the authentic copy of the No. 1045 of the No. 1045 of the No. 2016, Nov. 29, 2016, for compulsory execution of the investment bond against non-party F. The plaintiff received a collection order (U.S. District Court 2016TTTT13104) against the defendant on December 6, 2016.
According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above collection amount of KRW 30,510,000,000,000 for the rental deposit of KRW 50,000,00 for the remainder until the lease contract is terminated and the object is returned, the amount remaining after deducting all obligations of F, such as the compensation liability due to the loss, damage, etc. of the object, and damages for delay.
2. Judgment on the defendant's defense
A. The defendant's defense had already transferred the claim for the refund of the deposit of this case to a third party before the defendant delivered the plaintiff's claim for the seizure and collection order. Thus, the above seizure and collection order has no effect against the defendant.
B. (1) If the obligor satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims by notification with a fixed date, etc. after the obligor’s transfer of the claims subject to attachment or provisional attachment, even if another obligee of the obligor’s subsequent attachment or provisional attachment of the transferred claims, the seized claims at the time of attachment or provisional attachment have no effect as a seizure or provisional attachment because they do not have any existing claims at the time of attachment or provisional attachment, and therefore, the other obligee
(See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10748 delivered on May 30, 2003, Supreme Court Decision 2003Da22561 Delivered on September 3, 2004, etc.). (2) Eul is the evidence 8.