1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. If, ex officio, ex officio, the determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit concerning the lawfulness of the instant lawsuit, there exists a health account, a seizure and collection order against the claim, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the claims subject to seizure.

(See Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888 delivered on April 11, 2000. However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence Nos. 9 and 10, C received a seizure and collection order regarding the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant on November 22, 2010, and the fact that the above order was served on the Defendant, the garnishee at that time.

According to the above facts, inasmuch as a seizure and collection order was issued and served on the defendant, who is the garnishee, and its validity is maintained, the plaintiff lost the standing to file a lawsuit for performance of the claim for the lease deposit of this case against the defendant.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it was filed by a person who is not a party.

2. Thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance shall be dismissed as it is unfair to conclude otherwise, and the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed.