1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. On October 20, 2015, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the attachment and collection (hereinafter “instant attachment and collection order”) from the Defendant on October 26, 2015, with the amount claimed as KRW 11,465,920, under the executory performance recommendation decision for wage payment cases in Busan District Court Branch 2012Gau42495, the Plaintiff issued a collection order for the attachment and collection of the instant claim against C as to KRW 1/2 of the balance remaining after subtracting taxes and public charges from among the wage claims received from the D childcare center operated by the Defendant. The instant seizure and collection order was served on the Defendant on October 26, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, as the garnishee of the instant seizure and collection order, is obligated to pay KRW 11,465,920, which is the amount of seizure based on the instant seizure and collection order, to the Plaintiff, the collection authority, as the collection authority. 2) As for the Defendant’s claim C’s benefit claim against the Defendant, E has already been issued a seizure and collection order, the instant seizure and collection order of this case is null and void because the seized claim is already entirely transferred to E.

B. When an assignment order 1 becomes final and conclusive, the seized claim is naturally transferred to the obligee within the scope of the execution claim retroactively from the time when the assignment order was served on the garnishee, and simultaneously becomes effective when the execution claim is extinguished. The same applies to cases where the seized claim is a future claim that contains elements to clarify its existence and scope.

Therefore, since a seizure and assignment order on future claims becomes final and conclusive, the part of the claims subject to seizure has already been transferred to all creditors, so even if the seizure and assignment order was newly issued on the same future claims thereafter, the seizure does not arise, but it does not arise in the future.