Whether, in case of a collection order for the seizure of claim, the garnishee may oppose the execution creditor as the offset against the debtor.

In case where the garnishee had, prior to the delivery of the order of seizure and collection, the opposing claim against the creditor, which was in the offset against the creditor, even after the delivery of the order of seizure, the seized claim may be extinguished as a offset against the execution creditor.

Article 493 of the Civil Act, Articles 564 and 565 of the Civil Procedure Act

November 13, 1973, 73Da518 decided Nov. 13, 1978 (Supreme Court Decision 10580 decided Nov. 13, 197, Supreme Court Decision 213No. 155 decided Mar. 155, 200, Decision No. 493(3)434 of Civil Act, Court Gazette 478

Plaintiff

Permanent Residential Agricultural Cooperatives

Daegu District Court of First Instance (72Gahap5 delivered on July 1, 201)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 443,448 won with an annual interest rate of 5 percent from June 1, 1971 to the full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

The plaintiff is a compulsory execution under the order of provisional execution order for a provisional execution order of the Daegu District Court 70 tea 1952 in which the plaintiff sought the payment of 443,448 won against the non-party permanent residential agricultural cooperatives. Upon the plaintiff's application, the court issued on May 21, 1971 a seizure and collection order for the claim for self-financing fund funds held against the defendant, and there is no dispute between the parties that the order was served on the defendant on May 31, 197.

Defendant’s legal representative, before May 31, 1971, defense that the above claim for self-financing fund against the Defendant was extinguished by offset against the fertilizer and loan claims acquired by the Defendant against the non-party union. Thus, it is difficult for the non-party union to acknowledge that the above claim for self-financing fund was extinguished by the testimony of the non-party 1, 2, 4-1, 5-2, and 3-1, 3-1, 10, 10, 11-2, and 10, 10, 100, 100, 100, 100, 100,000 won-off against the Defendant’s testimony of the non-party 1, 2, 4-2, and 5-2, the non-party 1’s counter-party 4, 1971, on which the above claim for seizure and collection was delivered to the Defendant. Thus, the non-party 2, as of May 31, 1971.

The plaintiff's attorney argues that even if the claim was in the set-off before the delivery of the seizure and collection order, it cannot be asserted against the plaintiff as a subsequent set-off intention. However, if the defendant, the third debtor, acquired the opposing claim against the non-party partnership, which is the creditor, before the delivery of the seizure and collection order, it is interpreted that even after the seizure of the claim, the seizure claim may be extinguished by offsetting the plaintiff, who is the collection creditor, even after

In addition, the plaintiff's legal representative argues that (1) the defendant's delivery of the seizure and collection order of this case and the defendant's rejection of the subsequent collection amount without submitting objection, and (2) the defendant's acceptance of the claim against the defendant of the non-party union should be followed by the plaintiff's claim because the claim against the defendant of the non-party union remains in 1,00,000, even though the claim against the defendant is offset as above. However, since the defendant consented to the acceptance of the claim after the seizure of the above claim or there is no evidence to support the fact that the claim of 1,00,000 won remains in excess of the above set-off, the above assertion is groundless.

Therefore, as long as the above attached claims were extinguished by offsetting, the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the collection amount on the premise that the above claims exist is groundless, and thus, the original judgment with the same conclusion is justifiable, and thus, it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Articles 384, 95, and 89 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Hon-ro (Presiding Judge) and Cho Jong-hee