1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.

Of the instant lawsuits, 103,949,441 won and damages for delay.

1. The grounds for this part of the facts are the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Part concerning the attachment and collection order of E in the Plaintiff’s request

(a) If there exists a seizure and collection order against the claim, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim;

Matters pertaining to the above standing to be a party shall be examined and determined by the court ex officio as a matter of litigation requirements.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2007Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008; 2018Da2220178, Jul. 20, 2018). Meanwhile, the seizure and collection order becomes effective upon delivery to a third debtor (see, e.g., Articles 227(3) and 229(4) of the Civil Execution Act). Such seizure and collection order are effective upon delivery to a third debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 207Da60417, Sept. 25, 2008; 2018Da220178, Jul. 20

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da40444 Decided April 28, 201, and Supreme Court Decision 2013Da1587 Decided May 28, 2015, etc.) B.

On November 12, 2019, E applied for a seizure and collection order as to the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant based on an authenticated copy of the payment order (U.S. District Court 2019j1560) with executory power against the Plaintiff, with the amount claimed as KRW 103,949,441 (U.S. District Court 2019j1560) (U.S. District Court 2019T. 1648). On November 15, 2019, the above court accepted the application and issued a seizure and collection order, and the third debtor was served with the above seizure and collection order on November 21, 2019.

Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, KRW 103,949,441 out of the Plaintiff’s claim for return of investment deposit against the Defendant and the Defendant’s above.