Goyang support-2016-Shap73002 ( October 14, 2017)

In the event of continuous set-off of claims, the claims subject to attachment should be specified in the notice of attachment (State plaque)

(as in the first instance judgment) If claims to be seized are not specified by a notice of attachment of claims, it shall be null and void because the defects are grave and obvious.

2017Na2038721 Collection

Korea

AAmera Co., Ltd.

Suwon District Court Decision 2016Gahap7302 decided June 14, 2017

November 16, 2017

December 19, 2017

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 436,974,020 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Quotation of judgment of the first instance;

The grounds for a judgment of the first instance shall be quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

except that part of the following shall be dried or added:

2. Parts used or added;

On the five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance, the attachment of 3-2-2- below "as of February 12, 2015 is not effective regardless of whether or not the seized claim reaches the defendant because it is not specified."

As of February 12, 2015, the seizure of February 12, 2015 is invalid because the seized claims are not specified.

On the other hand, Article 41 (1) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that "the head of a tax office shall notify the obligor of the relevant claim (hereinafter the third obligor) when he/she seizes a claim, and Article 42 of the same Act provides that "the attachment of a claim shall take effect when a notice of attachment is served on the obligor." Thus, it is difficult to conclude that a notice of attachment of a claim related to attachment as of February 12, 2015 was served on the defendant (only it is recognized that the A head of a tax office requested the delivery of the notice of attachment by registered mail to the defendant's representative on February 16, 2015), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and it cannot be recognized that the attachment as of February 12, 2015 did not prove that the notice of attachment was served on the defendant."

○ The following shall be added at the end of 13 pages 6 of the first instance court judgment:

Even if the claim against each of the above seizures was specified, it is insufficient to recognize that the evidence, including evidence Nos. 4 and 9, submitted by the Plaintiff alone, had a claim against the Defendant of the East Amera as of Apr. 27, 2016 or Nov. 23, 2016, for which each of the above seizures took effect, or that there was a new claim against the said transaction price thereafter, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise (the Defendant did not assert any assertion or prove even if he/she was requested to interrogate the above at the first date for pleading in this Court. Rather, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments of evidence No. 1 submitted by the Defendant as of Apr. 27, 2016, the Defendant cannot be deemed to exist with a short-term loan claim of approximately KRW 900 million against the East Amera as of Apr. 27, 2016).

○ The 6th judgment of the first instance court, 15 to 16th judgment, shall be followed as follows:

Therefore, the seizure as of February 12, 2015, April 20, 2016, and November 21, 2016 is null and void because the claims subject to the seizure are not specified. Even if each of the claims subject to the seizure as of April 20, 2016, and November 21, 2016, is specified (in the case of seizure as of February 12, 2015, it is not likely that the claims subject to the seizure were specified, and it is apparent that the notification of the seizure is invalid because it is difficult to view that the claims subject to the seizure were delivered to the defendant). Thus, the plaintiff's assertion on the different premise is without merit.

3. Conclusion

The judgment of the first instance is justifiable, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.