1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiffs, as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Kadan803516, received a provisional attachment order as to the deposit claims against the Defendant by Plaintiff A 11,63,511, Plaintiff B 16,216,593, and Ethy Infrastructurenet Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Ath infrastructurenet”), and the original copy of the said decision was served on the Defendant on May 30, 2014.

B. On October 13, 2014, based on the executory payment order (Seoul Central District Court 2014Da34917), the Plaintiffs received a decision on the seizure and collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2014TN 28349; hereinafter “instant claim seizure and collection order”) from the Seoul Central District Court 2014Da34917, which was the other party to the AT Infrastructurenet, to transfer the above provisional seizure to the original seizure, and the said original of the decision was served on the Defendant on October 16, 2014.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-2, Gap evidence 2-2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion is a collection amount based on the collection order under the seizure and collection order of this case, and the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff A losses for delay from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the plaintiff B, the 16,216,593 won, and the above money.

B. On May 7, 2014, before the Defendant was served with a collection order and seizure of the instant claim, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant set off the Defendant’s deposit claim, which is a seized claim, as an automatic claim, with the Defendant’s claim for the loan against the IT Infrastructurenet as an automatic claim, and thus all of the deposit claims were extinguished.

3. Determination

A. Article 498 of the Civil Act provides, “The garnishee in receipt of an order prohibiting payment shall not set up against the creditor who applied for the order any defense of set-off against the subsequent claim acquired thereafter.”

In light of the purport of the above provision, the purpose and function of the offset system, and the interests of the relevant parties when a debtor's claim is seized, etc.