beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
purport.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. We examine the judgment as to the cause of the claim. The plaintiff received the order of seizure and collection (hereinafter "order of seizure and collection of the claim in this case") from the Seoul Southern District Court 2014 vehicle 16659, based on the executory order of payment claim of the Seoul Southern District Court 2014 vehicle 16659 against the non-party company (hereinafter "non-party company") on December 29, 2014 from the Seoul Southern District Court 2014 vehicle 2014 vehicle 24749 against the defendant. The plaintiff received the order of seizure and collection (hereinafter "order of seizure and collection of the claim in this case") from the non-party company as to KRW 17,873,872 from the date of the execution order of the debt collection claim of this case to the non-party company against the defendant. Unless there are special circumstances, the defendant is not in dispute between the parties, or is obliged to pay damages for delay calculated on January 2, 2015 as the whole statement in Gap evidence 1.
B. On this ground, the defendant asserted that the non-party company's transfer of the claim for the construction price of this case to another creditor prior to the seizure and collection order of this case, and has already been repaid to the transferee of the claim, and thus it is impossible to respond to the plaintiff's claim. In this regard, the highest order between the transferee of the claim and the executor of the seizure order concerning the same claim should be determined by the notification of the assignment of claim with a fixed date and the prior arrival to the third debtor of the seizure order. Thus, the seizure against the same claim by the garnishee after the notification of the assignment of claim with the fixed date to the third debtor after the notification of the assignment of claim with the fixed date is invalid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da72644, Apr. 21, 2000).