1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. Book Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Spellets”) holds a claim against the Defendant for pelpellets proceeds (hereinafter referred to as “instant pelpellets proceeds claim”).

B. On October 14, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a claim attachment and assignment order of KRW 50,454,100 (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) with respect to the claim for pellets pellets pellets pellets pellets pellets pellets 2016,455 (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) with the Defendant, based on the executory payment order original of the case, such as transfer money (2016,4555), from the Gwangju District Court’s Netcheon-si, Gwangju District Court 2016 (hereinafter “instant assignment order”).

On October 18, 2016, the above order was served on the Defendant.

C. Meanwhile, on September 30, 2016, the Seoul Special Cargo Co., Ltd.: (a) obtained a provisional attachment order against the Defendant on the instant Postal Postal Money Claim No. 512,911,303, which was issued by the Gwangju District Court Order No. 2016Kahap155 on September 30, 2016; and (b) the said provisional attachment order was served on the Defendant on October 6, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, each entry of Eul evidence No. 1, facts with this court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the allegations and the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the full payment amount of KRW 50,454,100 to the plaintiff, who is the creditor of the full payment, and damages for delay.

However, the defendant asserts that the assignment order of this case is invalid because the provisional seizure of other creditors was prior to the delivery of the entire order of this case.

When another creditor has seized, provisionally seized, or demanded a distribution with respect to the monetary claim until the assignment order is served on the garnishee, the assignment order shall not have the effect.

(Article 229(5) of the Civil Execution Act. However, according to the above facts, prior to October 18, 2016, the assignment order of this case was already delivered to the defendant who is the garnishee.