An assignment order issued under the concurrent status of seizure shall have no effect.

The assignment order of this case is invalid because it was issued in competition with attachment, etc., and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

Gwangju District Court 2016Kadan518326

A○○ Co., Ltd.

○○ State

November 18, 2016

December 02, 2016

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

With respect to the distribution procedure for the distribution procedure for the former ○○ District Court 200 another ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim attachment and collection order (○○ District Court 200○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Company on AA, and filed a claim attachment and collection order (○○ District Court 200○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○)

B. At that time, the CCC’s order of seizure and collection (○○○○○○○ and the claimed amount KRW ○○○○○○○○○) had already been issued with respect to the claim of KRW ○○○ (hereinafter “instant dividend claim”) against AAB BB corporation.

C. The Plaintiff filed an assignment order on 200. 0. 200 with respect to ○○○○, a part of the bonds, and received the decision on 200. ○. ○. ○. ○. ○, a part of the bonds, and the said assignment order (○○ District Court 200○○○○, hereinafter “instant assignment order”) was served on BB Co., Ltd., a garnishee on 200. 200. ○○.

D. The Defendant seized the instant dividend claim as a tax claim against AA on 200. 00. 00.

E. The ○○ District Court distributed each of the ○○○○○○○○ Tax Office affiliated with the Defendant, ○○○○○ Tax Office affiliated with the Defendant, ○○○○○ Tax Office affiliated with the Defendant, and ○○○○○○○ Tax Office, which was implemented on the instant dividend claim.

F. On the date of the above distribution, the Plaintiff raised an objection against the total amount of dividends to the Defendant, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant on 00.00,000, which is within one week from that date, (i) the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant. [Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, (ii) Gap’s statements in subparagraphs 1 through 5, (iii) Eul’s evidence Nos. 1 through 1 and 2, and (iv) the purport of the entire pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff received a claim assignment order only for the KRW ○○, which is part of the amount of KRW 00,00, which was determined by the collection order, and the claim amount of the CCC’s claim for the seizure and collection order is merely merely limited to KRW 00,00,00. Therefore, the instant assignment order is not issued in the condition of seizure competition. Therefore, the Defendant seized after the assignment order was served on the third debtor BB, which is the third debtor, should be excluded

B. Determination

An assignment order issued when seizure is concurrently effective (see Supreme Court Decision 83Meu450 delivered on August 23, 1983).

In light of the above, the Plaintiff’s seizure order and CCC’s seizure order with respect to the dividend claim of this case were already issued at the time the Plaintiff received the entire order of this case, and the total sum of the application amount for seizure of the Plaintiff’s claim exceeds KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won. Therefore, the assignment order of this case was issued at the time of competition with seizure, and thus, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.