1. The part of the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B, which is 12,352,602 won, shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant C shall be 22,00.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendants asserted that the instant lawsuit was unlawful on the ground that they were filed by a person who is not qualified as the parties, since they were served with a collection order under the Plaintiff’s name of other creditors.

B. Where there exists a seizure and collection order against the debtor's monetary claim, etc. against the third party debtor, only the execution creditor who has received the seizure and collection order pursuant to Articles 238 and 249 (1) of the Civil Execution Act may file a lawsuit claiming the performance of the seized claim against the third party debtor. The debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit claiming performance against the third party debtor with regard to the claim bearing the seizure and collection order. Thus, the lawsuit for performance filed by the debtor against the claim bearing the seizure and collection order is unlawful and dismissed without any need to review and determine the merits of the lawsuit.

(Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da202120 Decided December 18, 2013 (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da202120, Dec. 18, 2013). According to the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2-2, D may recognize the fact that: (a) under the Seoul Northern District Court Decision 2015Da10218, May 27, 2015, it received the Plaintiff’s claim for the purchase of goods against Defendant B; (b) issued a seizure and collection order; and (c) served the said order on Defendant B on June 1, 2015.

Therefore, among the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B, the part of the claim against the plaintiff's 12,352,602 won, which was issued by the plaintiff's creditor, is unlawful as it loses the plaintiff's standing to file a performance suit.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 11 and 8 as to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff engaged in the fish and shellfish wholesale business with the trade name “F” in Dongdaemun-gu Seoul, and the Defendants are married to their husband and wife with the trade name “H” in Gwangjin-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and the Plaintiff did not supply the Defendants with goods by June 23, 2010.