1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. Of the instant lawsuit (including the parts expanded in the trial), KRW 9,000,000 and its corresponding amount.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The defendant's main defense against the defendant was issued by the plaintiff's creditor a seizure and collection order against the plaintiff's loan claims against the defendant, and therefore, the plaintiff's defense is not a party standing.

B. Where there exists a seizure and collection order against the garnishee, etc. against the garnishee, only the execution creditor who received the seizure and collection order pursuant to Articles 238 and 249(1) of the Civil Execution Act may file a lawsuit claiming the performance of the seized claim against the garnishee. The debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit claiming performance against the garnishee against the garnishee regarding the claim bearing the seizure and collection order. Thus, the lawsuit for performance filed by the debtor against the claim bearing the seizure and collection order is unlawful and dismissed without the need to review and determine the merits.

(See Supreme Court Decision 99Da23888 Decided April 11, 200, and Supreme Court en banc Decision 2013Da202120 Decided December 18, 2013). Meanwhile, a seizure order against an obligation takes effect at the time of delivery to a third obligor, and its effect is limited to the interest or delay damages incurred after the seizure takes effect, and it does not extend to the interest or delay damages incurred after the seizure takes effect, but it does not extend to the interest or delay damages incurred before the seizure takes effect.

(1) In light of the purport of the entire argument in the statement of the evidence No. 1587, May 28, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1587, May 28, 2015). In full view of the purport of the argument No. 4, the fact that C received a claim seizure and collection order regarding KRW 9,00,000 among the Plaintiff’s loans owed to the Defendant by Suwon District Court 2016T, 201727, and the fact that the said decision was served on the Defendant on March 30, 2016 is obvious to this court, the Plaintiff lost its standing to file a lawsuit for performance of the claim seizure and collection order.

Therefore, the plaintiff is against the defendant.