beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff has a claim for each of the loans in Seoul East Eastern District Court 2013Na2100, 2012Gaso83198, and 2012Gaso 47839 in the same court.
B. On July 31, 2013, C purchased and sold an apartment building 19 households, which were constructed on a parcel and its ground outside Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, and 19, to Gyeongnam Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Seoul Construction Industry”), and the said sales amount was paid to the Defendant’s Nonghyup Bank account (E; hereinafter “instant account”).
Accordingly, the Gyeongnam Construction Industry deposited total of KRW 196 million in the instant account on August 18, 2013, KRW 19 million on August 19, 2013, KRW 10 million on August 19, 2013, KRW 310 million on December 31, 2013, and KRW 67 million on January 3, 2014.
C. On February 20, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30 million in the instant account under the name of the garnishee when the obligor sells the real estate on the Gyeonggi Pung-gun D to the Gung-gun Construction Industry, and deposited KRW 3,00,000,00 in the name of the third party obligor, and the obligor received a collection and seizure order (hereinafter collectively collectively referred to as “each of the instant collection orders”) by being issued a collection and seizure order under the name of the obligor, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment with executory power over each of the cases as stated in the foregoing paragraph (a). Each of the instant collection orders was delivered to the Defendant on February 26, 2014, by stating that “The amount to be paid by the third party obligor until it reaches the amount of the above claims, among the amount to be paid by the third party obligor,” and each of the instant collection orders was served to the Defendant on February 26, 2014.
The balance of the account at the time of February 26, 2014, when each of the collection orders in this case was served on the Defendant, is KRW 49,697.
[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 11, 15, 16, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number), response to an order to submit financial transaction information by the No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion; and