The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Facts of recognition

On May 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against B on the claim for the purchase price of goods at the Incheon District Court 2013da24350, and the decision of recommending settlement was finalized.

On March 17, 2015, based on the ruling of recommending settlement as above, the Plaintiff was issued a provisional seizure and collection order to KRW 54,824,039, among the claims for the purchase price of goods against the Defendant in the Incheon District Court 2015TT 6396.

Meanwhile, based on the payment order in the case of the purchase price of goods in B, the Incheon District Court 2013j623, the Busan District Court 2013Da623, the Kimpo-si court 2014, 12868, issued the above court 201,663,90 of the purchase price of goods against the defendant in B, and the above court 2014Guj2270 claimed against the defendant in the above court 200, and the payment order against the defendant was finalized around that time.

On April 23, 2015, the Defendant deposited KRW 47,641,317 as the purchase-price obligation against B on the ground of the competition between the above seizure and collection order, pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, 2, and 9, each entry in the evidence, significant facts in this court, the purport of the whole pleadings, the creditor who collects claims upon obtaining a collection order under the conditions of competition with seizure, shall collect them from the third debtor for all creditors taking part in the seizure or distribution in the seizure under the authority of the court of execution. Thus, if the third debtor repays to the legitimate collection authority, the effect of the third debtor's repayment shall be limited to all creditors having the relation with seizure, and if the third debtor deposits for execution or offsets the seizure or terminates the seizure claims due to other reasons, the effect of the third debtor's deposit for execution or extinguishing the seizure claims shall also affect all creditors having the relation of seizure (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da13035, Feb. 23, 2012). According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant deposited the entire amount of the goods price obligations against Eul upon the competition with the seizure.