beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
Claim:
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment citing the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
However, the following judgments should be added to the plaintiff's argument raised in the appellate trial.
2. The plaintiff asserts to the effect that the third obligor in receipt of an order prohibiting payment under Article 498 of the Civil Act cannot set up a defense against the creditor who applied for the order as a set-off based on the claim acquired thereafter, and that the plaintiff already received the order of provisional seizure as to the claim for the construction cost of Chowon apartment as the Daejeon District Court 2001Kadan11941, and that the decision was served on August 3, 2001, and thus, the defendant cannot set up against the plaintiff who acquired the provisional seizure order of this case from December 31, 201 to March 25, 2002.
When there exists a seizure and collection order, which is transferred from the provisional seizure against a monetary claim to the original seizure, the garnishee may oppose the execution creditor with the reason that it may oppose the seizure debtor before the provisional seizure is effected.
Therefore, in a case where the automatic claim against the garnishee is in a simultaneous performance relationship with the seized claim, which is a passive claim, even if the provisional seizure order was served on the garnishee and it became effective, the garnishee may claim a defense of simultaneous performance and set-off against the execution creditor.
In such a case, the ground for the occurrence of the automatic claim is established and existing before the provisional seizure of the passive claim, and thus, the automatic claim does not constitute the "claim acquired by the third party obligor who was ordered to prohibit payment" under Article 498 of the Civil Act.
Supreme Court Decision 201. 201