1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows, except for the addition of the parts determined by the court of the first instance as follows, and therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. In cases where the collection creditor of the seizure and collection order issued under the concurrent judgment of additional seizure receives the collection amount by again receiving the seizure and collection order against the third party debtor's monetary claim, the collection creditor shall deposit the collection amount to the court issuing the seizure and collection order without delay and report the reason thereof (see Supreme Court Decision 2007Da62963, Nov. 15, 2007). The same applies to cases where the collection creditor received the whole amount under the order of seizure and collection against the third party's monetary claim.

The defendant asserts that since the succeeding execution clause against the Seoul High Court case was received regardless of the collection order of this case, it cannot be deemed as the execution of the collection order, since the Seoul High Court's succession execution clause was received with the seizure and the whole order.

However, except for the collection order of this case, the Defendant did not have any claim regarding the development of the CT industry or the integrated construction of the military funeral. On the other hand, according to the seizure and collection order of this case, the Defendant could have acquired and succeeded to the execution clause by acquiring the collection right for the claim indicated in the Seoul High Court judgment. Thus, the Defendant’s receipt of the entire amount should be deemed execution of the collection order of this case.

3. In conclusion, the first instance judgment is just and the defendant's appeal is without merit, and it is so dismissed as per Disposition.