beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for modification and addition as follows. Thus, it is acceptable to accept this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Parts to be corrected and added; and
A. On December 14, 2015, the first instance court held that “The Daegu Bank, Daegu, Inc., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tgu Bank”) was transferred equivalent to KRW 42,060,000 and presented payment to the payment bank, but the payment for the bill was not paid upon receipt of the Defendant’s report on accident (the payment of KRW 40,00,000 to the final holder is not disputed)” in the first instance judgment, “The Defendant paid KRW 40,000,000 to B, and the amount of KRW 42,060,000 to the Daegu Bank, Inc., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tgu Bank”) on December 14, 2015, and revised the bill to “the payment for the bill was made to the final holder of the first bill.”
B. On December 14, 2015, the first instance court’s judgment, “The Daegu Bank, the final holder of which requested the payment of the second bill to the Payment Bank, but is not paid as the receipt of the Defendant’s report on accident,” amended the first instance court’s judgment to read “the Defendant paid KRW 2,8820,000 to the Daegu Bank, the final holder of which was the final holder.”
C. The judgment of the court of first instance added "each description of Nos. 6, 7-1 through 3, and 8-1 to 7" to the third part of the judgment of the court of first instance [the grounds for recognition].
Part IV of the Judgment of the first instance court
(b) add to this part the following:
The plaintiff asserts that the provisional attachment decision of this case has its effect as a matter of course on the claim for goods price of KRW 17,100,000 (excluding value-added tax of KRW 1710,00,00), which occurred on March 31, 2015, at the time of service of the provisional attachment decision of March 30, 2015 to the defendant, who is the garnishee.
The seizure order against the claim shall take effect to the extent that the secured claim exists in reality.