All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The mortgagee of a right to collateral security may exercise the subrogation right on money or other things to be received by the owner of the land due to the public collection, etc. of the land which is the object of the right to collateral security, but the mortgagee of a right to collateral security may not exercise the subrogation right on the money or other things before payment or delivery (Article 370 and Article 342 of the Civil Act).

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da17656 Decided May 14, 2009). Meanwhile, a creditor who files an application for an attachment order with respect to a claim shall specify the kind and amount of the claim to be attached in the application, and the seizure order against the claim becomes effective within the scope of the claim to be attached (Article 225 of the Civil Execution Act).

(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da32214, Oct. 25, 2012). Moreover, the specific scope of a claim subject to an order of seizure is determined by the interpretation of the language and text stated in the order of seizure, such as “order” and “the indication of a claim to be seized.”

However, it is necessary to protect a third-party obligor from imposing excessive burden when determining the type or scope of claims seized by the third-party obligor, as the third-party obligor is assigned to a legal dispute between other persons and bears obligations under the seizure order.

Therefore, the text of the seizure order should be objectively strictly interpreted according to the content itself, and if the meaning of the text is unclear, it would be reasonable to impose any disadvantage on the creditor who requested the seizure order. Therefore, the text of the seizure order should be based on the social average person who has ordinary caution.