The part of the plaintiffs' primary claim and the first preliminary claim are dismissed, respectively.

The plaintiffs.

1. Basic facts

A. Title 1 of the Defendants: (a) Defendant C filed an application with the Seoul Northern District Court for a payment order with the Seoul Northern District Court No. 2018 teas.98884 on December 20, 2018; and (b) the said court rendered a payment order with the content that “F shall pay to Defendant C the amount of damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the day following the delivery of the payment order to the day of full payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”).

(2) On June 8, 2016, F made an authentic deed stating that “F shall pay Defendant D KRW 1,739,000,000 to Defendant D by July 8, 2016, the interest rate shall be set at 1% per annum and shall be 20% per annum if the repayment is delayed (hereinafter “instant authentic deed”).

B. On February 25, 2019, Defendant C issued a collection order based on the instant order on February 25, 2019 with respect to “2,674,815,000 won among the instant deposit claim claim (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”) against the third obligor F, Seoul Western District Court 2018No. 1734, which was held against the Republic of Korea by the debtor F (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”),” and Defendant D received a collection order on July 2, 2019, regarding “2,674,84,15,00 won among the instant deposit claim claim against the third obligor F,” and “the collection order was issued on July 2, 2019 based on the instant authentic deed.”

C. The deposit officer of the instant deposit case filed a report on the ground that the seizure and collection order concerning the right to claim for the recovery of the instant deposit competes with each other (hereinafter “the instant report”). On August 22, 2019, the deposit officer of the instant deposit case filed a report on the ground that the seizure and collection order for the right to claim for the recovery of the instant deposit were concurrent.