1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 19, 2015 to the date of full payment.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In the facts of recognition, the ordinary border Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ordinary border”) holds against the Defendant a claim for the supply of ready-mixed with the amount of KRW 50 million (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”); the Plaintiff received the instant claim attachment and collection order (hereinafter referred to as “instant collection order”) under the Daegu District Court-dong Branch 2015TTT1987, Oct. 19, 2015, under the Daegu District Court-dong Branch 2015TTT1987, and the fact that the collection order of the instant case was served on October 21, 2015 to the Defendant is neither disputed between the parties, nor can it be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff, the person holding the right to collect the instant claim, the amount of KRW 50 million and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 19, 2015 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the Defendant

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The gist of the assertion was that the Republic of Korea (National Tax Service) did not pay national taxes of KRW 116,093,740,000, and that the claim of this case was seized following a disposition on default.

Therefore, once the seizure following the disposition on default and the collection order of this case are concurrent with the collection order of this case, the defendant cannot comply with the plaintiff's request for collection of this case.

B. According to the Civil Execution Act, a seizure and a collection order may be issued for a claim that was seized by a judgment, and a creditor who received a seizure and a collection order in civil execution procedures may file a lawsuit against the garnishee for collection.

A garnishee may not refuse a request for collection by a creditor, who has received a seizure and collection order in civil execution procedures, solely on the ground that the seizure under the disposition for arrears prior to the seizure and collection order is competition with each other.

Supreme Court Decision 9 Decided July 9, 2015