The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the grounds of appeal as to the non-existence of enforcement claim, the absence or extinction of enforcement claim is the reason for the obligor to assert in the lawsuit of objection, and the Defendant, the garnishee, in the lawsuit of collection, cannot refuse the repayment of obligation by asserting it as a defense.

The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to anti-social order, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

In addition, the argument in the grounds of appeal that the claim in this case would be unjust enrichment to the plaintiff is also premised on the non-existence or extinction of the enforcement claim, and thus, it cannot be accepted for the

2. As to the ground of appeal on the repayment to quasi-Possessor of the claim

A. The effect of the attachment and collection order shall accrue immediately when the original copy of the attachment and collection order was served on the garnishee. In other words, when it is recognized that the garnishee was in an objective condition capable of identifying the content thereof.

However, even when the collection order was lawfully served on the garnishee, if the garnishee did not know of the fact that the seizure and collection order was issued and the garnishee paid the seized claim to the debtor without negligence due to special circumstances, it can be acknowledged the third obligor's discharge in accordance with Article 470 of the Civil Act concerning the repayment to quasi-Possessor of the claim.

B. (See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da31858 delivered on August 27, 2002).

The judgment below

According to the reasoning, in the Seoul Central District Court case No. 201th 52101 that the Plaintiff filed against C, the above court ordered payment on June 30, 201, and the above payment order was finalized on September 7, 2011, and ② on March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant with the Seoul Central District Court 201Kahap5959 that the said payment order was enforcement title, and ② on March 20, 2013, the Plaintiff filed against the Defendant.