1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order of KRW 300,000,00 with respect to the third debtor of the debtor foreign exchange bank (hereinafter “foreign exchange bank”) as the title of execution against the payment order (Seoul Central District Court 201 tea 42968) (hereinafter “instant payment order”) as the title of execution.

On July 29, 2013, the foregoing court issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) with the content of citing the Plaintiff’s request. On August 29, 2013, the instant seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on August 2, 2013.

B. On July 8, 2011, the foreign exchange bank filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Plaintiff, as the court 2011Gahap7089, seeking the denial of compulsory execution based on the instant payment order.

On November 30, 2011, the above court rendered a judgment that “the compulsory execution based on the instant payment order shall not be permitted.” Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s appeal (Seoul High Court 2012Na6648) and the appeal (Supreme Court 2012Da47517) were dismissed, respectively, and the above judgment became final and conclusive on August 23, 2012.

C. On August 2, 2013, the foreign exchange bank filed a request to revoke the instant seizure and collection order, based on Article 50(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and this court rendered a decision to revoke the instant seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant decision”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit with the Defendant claiming the deposit of the seized claim pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the premise that it is the seizure right holder regarding the deposit claim against the Defendant of the bank outside of the bank by virtue of the instant seizure and collection order.

B. However, according to the decision of this case, the seizure and collection order of this case become invalid, and the plaintiff is seized and seized.