1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The Plaintiff received a seizure collection order against the garnishee’s deposit claim against the garnishee as shown below.

The debtor's case number 3: (1) the balance of the collection (won) at the time of delivery (won) and (2) A Daegu District Court 2012TTTTT 5699, 259 2,578,070 1,078,030 1,500,400, Seoul Southern District Court 23900, September 20, 2011; 3,448,8490, 201, 2047, 205, 207, 2017, 2047, 205, 205, 207, 2047, 205, 207, 305, 207, 205, 207, 305, 207, 204, 205, 207, 305, 207, 2014

2. As alleged and determined, the Plaintiff sought the payment of the collection amount to the obligor’s deposit claims based on the above claim seizure and collection order, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim for the collection amount is unjustifiable within the scope of the claim prohibited from seizure.

In a lawsuit for collection, the existence of a claim subject to collection is a requisite fact and the burden of proof is proved to the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11, 2007). Thus, the plaintiff cannot seize more than 1.5 million won, which is a deposit claim subject to prohibition of seizure, pursuant to Article 246 subparagraph 8 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act, unless the plaintiff proves that the above claim is not subject to prohibition of seizure.

Therefore, in the event that the garnishee has no obligation to investigate the validity of the seizure order and the garnishee has repaid it to the creditor, it can be protected as repayment to the quasi-Possessor of the claim, unless there is any negligence.