1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendants shall be revoked, and the Plaintiff corresponding to the above revoked part shall be against the Defendants.

1. The reasons for the court’s explanation concerning this case are as follows: “A final and conclusive certificater on October 15, 2013,” which reduces “No. 7 of the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance to “No. 14, 2013,” and the part of No. 11, No. 13 of the judgment as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the dismissal under the following paragraph (2). As such, the same shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Parts after being closed (the part not exceeding 13 on the ground of the judgment of the first instance);

3. Determination

A. The Defendants’ respective provisional seizure and collection orders, and each of the Plaintiff’s respective seizure and assignment orders and conditional claims that may arise in the future in the future can be identified as of the present right and can be expected to be generated in the nearest future, can be seized.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da76799, Feb. 25, 2010). A creditor who files an application for a provisional attachment or seizure order with respect to a claim should clarify the type and amount of the claim to be seized (Articles 225 and 291 of the Civil Execution Act). However, in cases where the subject and scope of the claim to be seized are not specified in the provisional attachment or seizure order due to the failure of the creditor to specify the subject and scope of the claim to be seized in the application for a provisional attachment or seizure, the said provisional attachment or seizure order does not take effect.

If the subject matter and scope of seizure are not specified, but only the amount claimed for the attachment of all several claims as the subject matter of seizure, and only the amount claimed for the same amount as the subject matter of execution claims is subject to an order of provisional seizure and seizure, the obligor and the third obligor cannot clearly distinguish what is the subject matter prohibited from payment or disposition by the provisional seizure and seizure order. As a result, the obligor exercise the right to the portion that is not subject to seizure, etc. or the third obligor is subject to seizure.