beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is all dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff’s extra selective claims are all dismissed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. In accordance with C by a notary public of the Gwangju District Public Prosecutor’s Office, on March 19, 2014, a notarial deed of a bill (hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”) was prepared at the commission of the defendant and B’s agents with respect to a promissory note, which was made at sight of the issuer B, face value 200 million won, the defendant, and the date of payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”).
B. On May 19, 2015, the Defendant received an order for the attachment and assignment of claims against B as to the claims against B (hereinafter “HE”) by the Gwangju District Court 2015TTS Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “HE”), the attachment and assignment of claims against B by the same court 2015TE9375 on June 9, 2015, and the attachment and assignment of claims against B by the same court 2015TE9652 on June 11, 2015, respectively.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant seizure and assignment order” in total, including the above three orders for seizure and assignment of claims.
Meanwhile, from September 26, 2014 to May 26, 2015, the Plaintiff supplied steel products, such as steel plates, to B. On June 9, 2015, the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order against B with the Gwangju District Court 2015 tea3819 on the purchase price of goods, and on June 15, 2015, the Plaintiff received the payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”) stating that “B shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 294,646,141 and delay damages therefrom,” and the said payment order became final and conclusive on July 4, 2015.
F, a creditor against B, requested the Gwangju District Court 2017TTT No. 2015108 to issue a seizure and collection order concerning the claim for return of unjust enrichment due to excessive seizure held against B against the Defendant. On October 10, 2017, the above court issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant collection order”) relating thereto, and F is a claim for return of unjust enrichment against B based on the foregoing order.