The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant, including the part arising from the supplementary participation.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, if the seizure, etc. of the monetary claim competes with the third obligor until the assignment order is served on the third obligor, the assignment order is null and void. However, if the competition of seizure occurred after the assignment order was served, it was before the assignment order becomes final

This does not affect the validity of an assignment order (Article 229(5) of the Civil Execution Act). Moreover, when an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, the seized claim shall be transferred to all creditors within the scope of the execution claim retroactively from the time it is served on the garnishee and simultaneously becomes effective when the execution claim becomes void.

(2) According to the records, the following facts are revealed: (a) the Plaintiff’s claim for the instant judgment against the Defendant was served on the Defendant (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) on April 17, 2017, when the attachment and assignment order of claims issued by H, etc. (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) pursuant to the wooden District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) on April 19, 2017.

Examining the above facts in light of the provisions and legal principles of the Civil Execution Act, insofar as the assignment order of this case became final and conclusive, the concurrence of seizure should be determined on the basis of the post of the service date to the defendant, who is the garnishee. The assignment order of this case was served on the defendant, who is the third debtor prior to the collection order of this case.