beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 10,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 9, 2015 to December 15, 2015.
Reasons
Basic Facts
C Based on the fact that the Plaintiff was the husband of D, and based on the authentic authentic copy of a notarial deed with executory power over C with C, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order with this court 2014TTT37264 against KRW 45,269,863 out of KRW 100,000,000,000, Incheon E 402, Yeonsu-gu, Incheon, where C had against the Defendant (hereinafter “instant claim for the refund of deposit”). The fact that the above seizure and collection order was served on January 30, 2015 does not conflict between the parties.
The plaintiff asserts that the amount of the lease deposit refund claim against the defendant of the judgment C is KRW 100 million, and the defendant asserts that the amount of the lease deposit refund claim against the defendant of the judgment C is KRW 50 million.
According to Eul evidence 3-1, Eul's testimony and the whole purport of argument, it is recognized that the obligation to return the deposit of this case was 50 million won, and the lease contract, the amount of deposit of which is KRW 100 million, entered into with the plaintiff's money, was only made and delivered to the plaintiff at his own discretion by borrowing money from the plaintiff.
The defendant's effect of the seizure and collection order is 50,00,000 won for the claim to return the deposit of this case, and the seizure and collection order of this case was issued against part of 100,00,000 won for the claim to return the lease deposit of this case against the defendant. Thus, C did not specify the claim that is the object of the seizure and collection order, and the order is invalid.
If the indication of the claim, which is the object of the seizure and collection order, does not reach the degree of undermining the recognition of identity by having the interested person, particularly the garnishee separate from other claims, such seizure and collection order shall be deemed valid.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da89036, Apr. 28, 2011). Although the amount of lease deposit is different from that of the lease deposit, C has a relation to the Defendant according to the purport of the written evidence No. 5 and the entire pleadings.