1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

1. The reasoning for this part of the judgment of the court is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

2. The Plaintiff’s original copy of the instant assignment order was served on September 10, 2015 on or around 10:06, on or around September 7, 2015, on the part of the Plaintiff’s claim. A notice of cancellation of the execution of the instant collection order issued by Defendant C was also served on or around September 7, 2015, Jeonnam-do, the garnishee. In a case where the instant assignment order and the instant notice of cancellation of the execution of the collection order were simultaneously served on the garnishee, and there is no heat among them, the instant assignment order is valid as it does not constitute competition of seizure.

Therefore, even though the Defendants had the preferential right to dividends in accordance with the assignment order of this case, they received dividends in proportion to the ratio of their claims. This is because the Defendants obtained profits equivalent to the dividend without any legal ground and thereby incurred losses to the Plaintiff, the Defendants are obligated to return the amount equivalent to each of the dividends to the Plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

3. Determination

A. When another creditor has made a demand for seizure, provisional seizure, or distribution with respect to the seized claim until the assignment order is served on the garnishee, the assignment order has no effect (Article 229(5) of the Civil Execution Act), and the standard point of time for determining whether there exists competition with the attachment, etc. is served on the garnishee.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 98Da15439, Aug. 21, 1998; 2009Da98980, May 13, 2010).

With respect to the instant case, when the Plaintiff’s instant assignment order was served on Jeonnam-do, a garnishee, around September 10, 2015, and the Defendant C’s notice of cancellation of execution of the instant collection order was served on Jeonnam-do, the garnishee, and the facts that around September 10, 2015 were around September 7, 2015 are different as seen earlier.