beta
Text
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit
A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Defendant as the obligor, the Plaintiff as the garnishee, and the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor as the Defendant is the Defendant. The Defendant’s Intervenor as the Defendant’s Intervenor was the District Court Decision 2016TTTT 2016TT 597 on December 23, 2016 (the claimed amounting to KRW 74,638,000), and D was the District Court Decision 2016TT 18556 on December 26, 2016 (the claimed amounting to KRW 247,013,698). However, there was no claim attachment and collection order against the Plaintiff as the Defendant (the claimed amounting to KRW 247,01,651,698 (=74,638,000).
B. If there exists a seizure and collection order against the claims, the creditor who received the collection order may exercise on behalf of the debtor all the rights necessary for the collection of the claims, and as a result, the debtor after the collection order loses the right to perform the lawsuit, thereby losing the right to perform the lawsuit against the garnishee, as well as the party standing to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation against the garnishee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008). Therefore, in cases where the garnishee files a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the existence of the obligation against the claims subject to seizure, it is reasonable to deem that the debtor loses the party standing to file a lawsuit
[Supreme Court Decision 2016Da13284, 8657 (Counterclaims), Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na5929 (Mains), and 5936 (Counterclaims) Decided January 14, 2016] C.
Judgment
In light of the above legal principles, the issue of this case is consistent with the sum of the claims for the seizure and collection order of each of the above claims asserted by the plaintiff as the absence of the plaintiff. The defendant, who is the debtor of the seizure and collection order of each of the above claims, did not have the standing to file a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the debt of this case filed by the plaintiff as the third debtor.
According to the facts and the purport of the entire arguments in this court, the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s claim amounted to KRW 1,242,678,082, and Defendant B and the garnishee’s District Court Decision A, April 20, 2017, was seized and seized.