beta
Text
1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:
Of the instant lawsuits, KRW 362,026,812 among the instant lawsuits and its related thereto.
Reasons
1. The grounds for the court’s explanation on this part of the facts and the allegations by the parties are as stated in paragraphs (1) and (2) of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. If there exists a seizure and collection order as to the claim regarding the legality of the instant lawsuit, only the collection creditor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee. The debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da23888, Apr. 11, 200). Since the existence of standing to sue is an ex officio investigation, the court shall investigate and determine it ex officio without any party’s assertion (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da25866, Apr. 12, 2002). In full view of the purport of the argument in evidence No. 12, the whole argument in evidence No. 12, and the purport of the argument in evidence No. 12, the Daejeon District Court: (i) the creditor I, the debtor, C, the garnishee, the amount claimed, 362, 2026, 128, and the amount seized by the defendant among the above claims, and the amount seized by the collection order.
Therefore, a claim for performance against the Defendant regarding the above KRW 362,026,812 among the claim for construction cost of this case may be filed only by I, the collection obligee, and C, the debtor, loses its standing to be a party. Accordingly, the plaintiff who acquired the claim for construction cost of this case before the transfer of the claim for construction cost of this case cannot be a party to this lawsuit.
Therefore, the part concerning the claim for payment of the above KRW 362,026,812 among the lawsuit of this case and damages for delay is unlawful.
3. Of the instant lawsuits for determination on the merits, the Plaintiff lost its standing as a party, as set out in paragraph 2 above.