Daejeon District Court-2016-Annex-15 (2017.04.05)

Payment of seized Bonds

The judgment of the court below that there are claims for construction price against the delinquent taxpayer is just, and therefore the defendant is liable to pay attached claims to the plaintiff.

Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act

Daejeon High Court 2016Na1370 Collection Money

Korea

Park Han-gu

on October 15, 2017

on October 05, 2015

1. All appeals by the defendant are dismissed. 2. Costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

The defendant 243,561,644 won and a copy of the complaint of this case against the plaintiff Jung Han River Co., Ltd.

The amount of 20% interest per annum from the next day of service to the day of full payment, and the plaintiff Yang Sung-sik

54,614,923 Won and 5% per annum from December 20, 2014 to the service date of a copy of the complaint in this case.

20% interest per annum from the next day to the day of full payment, 20% interest per annum; and

53,88,980 won to intervenors and 15% per annum from January 9, 2016 to the day on which intervenors complete payment.

each payment of money by rate is made.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance against the plaintiffs and the part against the plaintiff co-litigation intervenor

- 3-

cancellation and cancellation of all the claims of the plaintiffs and the plaintiffs' co-litigants corresponding to the cancellation part.

each subparagraph.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The reasoning of this court's judgment is the same as the written judgment of the court of first instance other than the following. Therefore, it is citing it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

The actual contents of the 16th page "305,450,000 won" shall be "305,480,000 won", and the part of "decision on the defendant's argument" in Articles 16, 6, and 18 of the 16th page 6 to 18 of the 18 shall be determined as follows.

A. The defendant's argument

As for the instant claim for the construction price, several recommendations, orders for seizure and collection are concurrent, and the sum of claims by collection creditors, etc. exceeds the amount of claims subject to seizure, the claim seeking direct payment against the Defendant is unreasonable, and order the Plaintiffs and the Plaintiff Co-Litigation Intervenor to pay the amount of claims subject to seizure by depositing only the amount of claims subject to seizure.

B. Relevant legal principles

Even if a collection order has been issued several times with regard to the same claim, there is no order of priority between them, and when not only the creditor who collects the claim upon obtaining a collection order but also the seizure is concurrent or there is a demand for distribution, the creditor who collects the claim from the garnishee, for all creditors taking part in the seizure or distribution, according to the authorization of the court of execution.

- 4- As such, its ability to collect is limited to the total amount of seized claims, and if the third obligor repays the debt to the legitimate collection authority, its effect is limited to all creditors above, so it does not require the concurrent repayment of the seized claims and the amount of the other collection authority's execution claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da43819, Mar. 27, 2001).

In light of the above legal principles, the collection creditor may claim the full amount of the claims to be collected within the scope of the amount of claims to be seized, and the defendant's payment of the total amount of claims to the plaintiffs and the plaintiff co-litigants within the scope of the amount of claims to be seized cannot be permitted against the relative effect of seizure. In addition, Article 236 (2) 1 of the Civil Procedure Act is merely a provision that imposes the deposit obligation on the collection creditor, and it cannot be said that the defendant, the third debtor, bears the deposit obligation under the above provision, and Article 248 (2) and (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act is based on the claim of the creditor participating in the distribution procedure or the claim of the execution creditor at the concurrent time of seizure. Therefore, the defendant's allegation in this part is without merit.

2. Conclusion

If so, the judgment of the first instance court is justifiable, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.