beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The court's explanation of this case by the court of the first instance as to this case is identical to the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for the addition of the following matters, and thus, it is citing it as it is by the main sentence of Article 420
Since there is no deposit account opened in the name of the garnishee (stock company C) in the name of the debtor (defendant), the original district court does not have the effect of the seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure order”) under the name of the third debtor (defendant), the plaintiff has the interest in the lawsuit in the lawsuit of this case for the interruption of extinctive prescription.
Judgment
In light of the following circumstances, the existence of a claim subject to seizure does not fall under the requirements for the commencement of compulsory execution, and the substantive reasons such as the absence of a claim subject to seizure do not constitute an appeal against the seizure order. In addition, barring special circumstances, barring any special circumstance, the extinctive prescription of the execution claim shall be interrupted by executing the seizure order even in cases where the creditor has already extinguished the claim against the third obligor at the time of seizure of the obligor’s claim against the third obligor (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da4730, Jan. 29, 2014). Thus, even if the deposit claim, which is the seized claim, is nonexistent, this does not fall under the grounds for the interruption of extinctive prescription due to the lack of a claim subject to seizure, and thus, the effectiveness of interruption of the extinctive prescription is also recognized.
Thus, the lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed as it is unlawful, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.