1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On April 26, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that KRW 500 million against the limited company B had been issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) against the Defendant of the limited company B, as Seoul Southern District Court 2017TTTTTT 2017TTT103028, with respect to “Seoul Yangcheon-gu C,680 square meters and the lease deposit amount of KRW 141,94,860 regarding the above ground D building, and the refund claim of KRW 141,94,860.” Since the original copy of the said decision was served on the Defendant on April 28, 2017, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 50,000 and delay damages to the Plaintiff’s claim in accordance with the instant seizure and collection order.

B. A creditor who files an application for an order of seizure for a judgment claim shall specify the type and amount of the claim to be seized (Article 225 of the Civil Execution Act), and, in particular, when applying for an order of seizure only for part of the claim to be seized, specify the scope thereof

(Civil Execution Rule No. 159(1)3). Nevertheless, in a case where the subject and scope of the claims to be seized are not specified in the seizure order due to the failure of the creditor to specify the subject and scope of the claims to be seized in the application for the seizure, the seizure does not take effect on the seizure order.

This legal doctrine has several claims against a third-party obligor, and is equally applied when a creditor files an application for seizure on the entire amount of each claim. In such a case, the creditor must clearly specify what the claim is filed for seizure within the scope of one of the multiple claims in itself.

Without specifying the subject and scope of seizure, the whole of the several claims shall be subject to seizure.