The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited in the judgment is as stated in the part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the judgment on the defendant's argument emphasized or added in the trial of the court of first instance as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act to

2. Determination as to the defendant's assertion emphasized or added in the trial

A. As to the claim that the attachment and collection order received by the Plaintiff is null and void because it does not specify the seized claim, the Defendant asserts that the attachment and collection order (the Changwon District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2288, hereinafter “instant attachment and collection order”) received by the Plaintiff as the debtor and the Defendant as the third debt is null and void because the type of the seized claim is not clearly specified.

In a case where a seizure order does not specify the subject and scope of a claim to be seized upon a creditor’s application for seizure (see Article 225 of the Civil Execution Act), the effect of the seizure order does not occur in the case where the claim to be seized is not specified in the seizure order due to the creditor’s failure to specify the subject and scope of the claim to be seized (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da38394, Nov. 15, 201). Therefore, in addition to the pleading’s whole purport in the statement in evidence No. 1, the fact that the claim to be seized is indicated as follows is acknowledged in the seizure and collection order of the instant claim.

E The content of the above seized claim stated in GH I’s collection order is “the part to which the debt manager sold the instant I case on October 19, 2017 and paid to the Defendant in relation to KRW 500,000,000,000 from the purchase price received, until it reaches KRW 362,854,364, out of the gold or loan repayment claim held by the Defendant.” The subject and scope of the above seized claim are clearly specified, and unlike the parties, the subject and scope of the seized claim are not specified.