1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. The costs of the lawsuit in the first instance among the total costs of the lawsuit.

1. The reasons for this part of this Court’s findings are as follows: “Nos. 5, 6, and 7” is added to the grounds for recognition of No. 20 of the first instance judgment.

In addition to the following cases, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

F. F, the obligee of E, on February 20, 2017, pursuant to the assignment order of this case (hereinafter “the entire claim of this case”) issued by Busan District Court 2017Kadan50516 (hereinafter “the entire claim of this case”).

E) On May 18, 2017, F transferred the provisional seizure to Busan District Court Decision 2017TTY 201 and additionally seized KRW 26,006,848 out of the entire claim of this case, and issued a collection order and attachment order with the purport that the collection authority is granted to KRW 76,006,848. The above collection order and attachment order were served to the Defendant, the garnishee, on May 22, 2017.

2. Determination

A. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court on the cause of the claim is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

B. The defendant's assertion 1) The defendant alleged that the whole claim of this case was deposited in execution of KRW 71,496,00, which is the full amount of the defendant's obligation due to the concurrent seizure of the plaintiff and F. Since the whole claim of this case was extinguished due to the above execution deposit, the plaintiff's claim is without merit. 2) The third debtor's deposit for execution under Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act is a requirement for the concurrence of seizure of the seized claim. In this case, the third debtor's deposit for execution under Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act is the total amount of the obligation to be deposited (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da22700, Jul. 22, 2004).