beta
Text
1. The request for retrial of this case is dismissed.
2. The costs of retrial shall be borne by the plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Based on the executory payment order in the instant case No. 2013 tea3400 against Nonparty A (hereinafter “instant payment order”), the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) issued a claim seizure and collection order against the Defendant, who is the garnishee of the said Plaintiff, on April 8, 2013, on the basis of the executory payment order in the instant payment order (hereinafter “instant payment order”), against the Defendant, on April 12, 2013, and served the Defendant on April 12, 2013.
B. On November 24, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim against the Defendant for the payment of the collection amount from this Court No. 2015Kadan47117 (hereinafter “instant lower court”).
C. Accordingly, the lower court of this case (hereinafter “A”) filed a suit of objection against the Plaintiff regarding the instant payment order, and filed a motion for the suspension of compulsory execution against the instant payment order under this Court No. 2013Kaga203, Apr. 18, 2013, on the condition that “A shall deposit KRW 17,000,000,000,” which was the execution based on the original copy of the instant payment order, shall be suspended until the pronouncement of the instant claim (U.S. District Court No. 2013Kadan60999).
“A” received a decision to suspend compulsory execution; “A was rendered a favorable judgment in a lawsuit of objection against the instant claim seeking the exclusion of executory force of the instant payment order against the Plaintiff; on June 26, 2014, the said judgment became final and conclusive as is; accordingly, on August 6, 2014, the fact that the said order was revoked; and accordingly, the Plaintiff cannot be deemed a lawful execution creditor; accordingly, the Plaintiff lost the right to exercise the right to claim deposit against the third obligor pursuant to Article 248(2) and (3) of the Civil Execution Act; and eventually, the judgment dismissing the instant lawsuit on the ground that the Plaintiff lost its standing to institute the instant lawsuit (hereinafter “instant judgment”).
[Reasons for Recognition] There is no dispute between the parties or substantial facts in this court, including Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6;