1. The Plaintiff’s transfer of provisional seizure against the Defendant to the principal seizure of the instant court’s 201TTB 46159.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On July 29, 2009, the Plaintiff purchased 2,529,120,000 F building G from the Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government E and one parcel of land outside Seocho-gu and transferred the ownership on the same day.

B. On the same day, the Plaintiff set the right to collateral security of KRW 241,416,00 for the said company.

C. On July 21, 2011, Korea (U.S.) seized the foregoing collateral security claims. D.

The Defendant, with the title to execute the conciliation protocol of this case 2010s. 46684 against the above company, was registered and executed on March 29, 2012 with the order of seizure and completion of claims as stated in the order, within the scope of KRW 101,80,000, which the said company had against the Plaintiff.

[In the absence of any dispute, the purport of Gap 2, 5, and all pleadings]

2. Determination

(a) In the event of a overlapping seizure of an assignment order due to duplicate seizure, the assignment order is null and void, and the assignment order does not take place in whole against the defendant.

According to the Sung-nam's reply, the amount of credit at the time of seizure based on the tax claim is KRW 161,408,950 (74,790, 1901, 634, 260, 84, 984, 500), and the amount of credit at the time of seizure based on the tax claim was partially paid on November 25, 201, and the remaining amount of credit is KRW 129,131,420.

Therefore, the amount that is not seized as a tax claim among the claims on the collateral security is KRW 112,284,580.

(241,416,00- 129,131,420). Since the amount exceeds 101,80,000 won for the Defendant to whom the attachment and assignment order was issued, the Defendant does not eventually overlap at the time of seizure of the Defendant’s claims.

The argument that an assignment order is null and void on the ground of duplicate seizure is without merit.

The plaintiff's assertion that an assignment order is null and void on the ground of duplicate seizure is without merit.

B. Whether the prescription expires, the company was established for the purpose of selling and selling real estate (A) and the foregoing collateral security claim is a claim that the company purchased and sold the above real estate to the Plaintiff, and thus, it was ultimately caused by commercial activities (A 5).