1. Of the instant lawsuits, the part claiming KRW 26,816,467 and the damages for delay shall be dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder.

Facts of recognition

A. On March 8, 2012, the Defendant prepared a cash custody certificate stating that “The Plaintiff and C shall borrow KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff and C, and promised to repay in 2019,” and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

B. Meanwhile, C applied for a collection order against KRW 6,242,480 among the Plaintiff’s loans to the Defendant and applied for a seizure and collection order against KRW 20,573,987 as Seoul Northern District Court 2020 on February 18, 2020, and applied for a seizure and collection order against KRW 20,573,987, and received the decision on February 20, 2020 as Seoul Northern District Court 20,00 other 10,02597 (hereinafter referred to as “instant seizure and collection order”), and the above seizure and collection order were served on the Defendant on February 24, 2020.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, Eul's entry in 3 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The defendant's assertion that C, the creditor of the plaintiff, as the defendant, is unlawful among the loans of this case against the plaintiff's defendant, the plaintiff and the third debtor, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant, the seizure and collection order was issued.

B. If there exists a seizure and collection order against the judgment claim, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor loses the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da60417 Decided September 25, 2008, etc.). The Plaintiff’s creditor obtained the instant claim attachment and collection order as to KRW 6,242,480,20, the sum of KRW 20,573,987 among the instant loan claims, and KRW 26,816,467, as seen earlier. Thus, the Plaintiff lost its standing to seek KRW 26,816,467 among the instant loan claims, and its delay damages. Accordingly, this part is unlawful.

3. Judgment on the remaining claims of the plaintiff

A. On March 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant was due for reimbursement of KRW 50 million, setting the period of reimbursement to the Defendant around 2019.