An assignment order shall be null and void, if the sum of seizures of claims exceeds the amount of claims subject to seizure.

Where two or more orders for seizure and assignment of claims are issued on the same claim and simultaneously served on the garnishee, if the sum of the amounts of seizure of claims exceeds the amount of seized claims, the relevant assignment order shall be null and void as issued on the condition that all the seizure of claims is concurrent.

§ 229. Method of Encashment of monetary claims

Article 235 of the Civil House Administrative Court Act

2013 Gohap 220 Demurrer

1.A Construction Co., Ltd. 2.B Construction Co., Ltd.;

Korea

October 10, 2013

November 7, 2013

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

PO district court's OO branch's O branch's 2012taly 000, among the dividend table prepared by the above court on January 24, 2013, the dividend amount to the defendant shall be deleted, and it shall be corrected that the dividend amount to the defendant is distributed to the plaintiff AA construction corporation, the plaintiff BB construction corporation, and the plaintiffCC construction industry corporation, respectively.

1. Basic facts

A. Status of the plaintiffs

1) On February 23, 2012, DD General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "DD case") subcontracted DD General Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "PlaintiffCC Construction Co., Ltd.") to the PlaintiffCC Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff Co., Ltd.") on March 28, 2012 after being awarded a contract for OOcheon flood damage restoration (hereinafter referred to as "the instant construction") from OOOO, and subcontracted DD Construction to Plaintiff AA Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff AA Construction") on March 29, 2012, and the Plaintiff BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Plaintiff B Construction").

2) On July 12, 2012, the Plaintiffs received a seizure and assignment order (hereinafter “instant assignment order”) on part of the instant claim for construction payment against O of D Class D recommendation as indicated in the table below. Each of the instant assignment orders was served on O on July 13, 2012, and was finalized on July 26, 2012.

Case Number

(O) O branch court O branch court

Title

(Notarial Deed drawn up by Law Firm OO Office, April 17, 2012)

Amount of claim

AA

2012 Other bond 000

No. 000 of 2012

77,260,00 won

BB

2012 Other bond 000

No. 000 of 2012

187,990,000 won

CC

2012 Other bond 000

No. 000 of 2012

199,100,00 won

Total

1,164,350,000 won

(b) Deposit and dividend;

1) On November 28, 2012, the OOO branch of the O District Court deposited the OOO branch of the OO branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of the O branch of 00

2) In the distribution procedure for the above court’s deposited money, the above court determined the amount to be actually distributed as OOO on January 24, 2013, and prepared a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) that distributes the entire amount to the Defendant (the seizure authority) who is the seizure authority. The Plaintiffs appeared on the aforementioned distribution date and raised an objection against the entire amount of the dividends to the Defendant.

Facts that there is no partial dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 5, 9 through 12, Eul evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

Since the claim for construction price of this case was already transferred to the plaintiffs in accordance with each assignment order of this case, the distribution schedule of this case should be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Defendant’s assertion

Since the sum of each of the Plaintiffs’ respective seizure amounts exceeds the sum of the instant construction cost claims, each of the instant assignment orders is null and void when seizure is concurrent. Accordingly, the instant distribution schedule is justifiable.

C. Determination

Therefore, we examine whether the assignment order of each of the instant cases was issued under the concurrence of seizures and thus becomes invalid.

1) In a case where two or more orders for seizure and assignment of the same claim were issued and simultaneously served on the garnishee, whether the relevant assignment order was null and void since it was issued at the same time with the concurrent seizure of claims should be determined on the basis of whether the total sum of the seizure amount of each order for seizure of claims exceeds the amount of the claims subject to seizure. If the former exceeds the latter, the relevant assignment order is null and void as it was issued under the concurrent seizure of claims. Moreover, even if the concurrent situation is resolved thereafter, the effect of the assignment order shall not be considered.

2) On February 23, 2012, D-type D case received O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O-O.

3) According to the above facts, it is apparent that the sum of the provisional attachment amount of FF development and the respective seizure amount of the plaintiffs (i.e., OOwon + OOOOwon) of each of the instant orders issued by the instant assignment order to OOOOO on July 13, 2012, exceeds the amount of the instant contract price claim (i.e., contract price amount - OOOOwon - FOOOOOOOwon) or OOOOO director (i.e., contract amount - POOOO director - FOOOOOwon - FOOOO). Thus, each of the instant assignment orders is null and void as they were issued under competition with the seizure.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserts that, after July 13, 2012, the O-si's construction mutual aid association received a security deposit from the construction mutual aid association and the concurrent situation was resolved. According to the written evidence No. 14 through No. 16, it can be acknowledged that the construction mutual aid association paid the OOO to the O-si on September 19, 2012 by requesting the construction mutual aid association to pay a security deposit. However, the validity of each assignment order of the instant case, which has already been invalidated, is not returned. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs' assertion on the premise that each assignment order of the instant case is valid, is without merit without having to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are without merit, and they are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.