beta
Text
The judgment below
Among them, the part against Defendant B shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the District Court.
Reasons
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. As to the appeal against the defendant B
A. From the collection and seizure order, the specific scope of the claims to be seized is determined by the interpretation of the text stated in the “Indication of the claims to be seized” of the decision.
The phrase “indicating a claim to be seized” should be objectively and strictly interpreted, and claims that a third-party obligor may have doubts as to whether they are included in the understanding of the language and text based on an ordinary average person with ordinary care are not included in the subject of seizure, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da26296, Dec. 26, 2013).
After finding the facts as stated in its reasoning, the lower court determined that: (a) on November 7, 2012, the respondent and the defendant B were subject to the attachment and collection order (hereinafter “instant claim attachment and collection order”) with respect to the claim amounting to KRW 221,463,013 out of the down payment, intermediate payment, and the remainder that the Plaintiff and the defendant B return to the Plaintiff where the first sale contract of this case between the Plaintiff and the defendant B was terminated by the judgment, such as the ownership transfer registration, etc., by designating the obligor and the defendant B as the third obligor; and (b) on November 29, 2012, the lower court received the attachment and collection order (hereinafter “the instant claim attachment and collection order”); and (c) as such, the respondent was transferred the monetary claim due to the cancellation of the instant first sale contract before the instant lawsuit.
Furthermore, the lower court: (a) the Plaintiff sought performance of the instant lawsuit against Defendant B (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s claim”) is merely the same as the monetary claim as that of the said restitution, or the difference in the method of resolving disputes over the same living facts or the same economic interests; and (b) thus, the effect of the instant claim attachment and collection order is identical to the Plaintiff’s claim.