beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On January 31, 2017, the Plaintiff issued an order of seizure of claim (hereinafter “instant order of seizure”) on the amount equivalent to KRW 92,445,759 out of the Plaintiff’s right to claim for future dividends, the right to claim the return of shares, and the right to claim the distribution of remaining assets, against the Plaintiff, the debtor D, the garnishee, the garnishee, and the garnishee, as Defendant B, E, F, and G, based on D’s credit (hereinafter “instant order of seizure”).
The instant seizure order was served to F on April 19, 2017, to E on April 23, 2017, to G on July 20, 2017, but was not served to Defendant B.
On the other hand, Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, was issued a seizure order on the amount of money equivalent to KRW 184,590,409, out of the Plaintiff’s claim for future distribution of dividends, the right to claim the return of shares, and the right to claim the distribution of residual property, and the right to claim the seizure of claims against the Defendant B on June 21, 2017, and the order was sent to the Defendant B on June 22, 2017, to E and F on June 22, 2017, respectively, by serving as the obligee C, the obligor D, the third obligor D, the third obligor, and the obligor on June 22, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 5 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings
2. On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants intentionally refused the receipt of the instant seizure order, which caused concerns that the Plaintiff’s claim would take precedence over the Defendant’s claim when receiving the instant seizure order, constitutes a tort, and accordingly, the Defendants should compensate the Plaintiff for damages equivalent to the claim amount of the instant seizure order.
As seen earlier, the instant seizure order was not served only on Defendant B among the garnishees, but such fact alone is difficult to readily conclude it as the Defendants’ intentional refusal to receive.