Debt Collection Attorney New York 25 Million Krw Claim Order

The client had worked for many years with a former business partner whose misconduct caused significant financial harm.

Following civil litigation, the court awarded monetary damages equivalent to approximately 25 million KRW in the client’s favor.

Despite the final judgment, the debtor repeatedly delayed payment without providing a concrete repayment plan or credible justification.

As time passed, the client became increasingly concerned about asset dissipation and sought immediate legal assistance to enforce the judgment.

Garnishment is a court authorized process that allows a judgment creditor to intercept money owed to the debtor by third parties.

This may include wages, bank deposits, or other receivables legally subject to collection.

Rather than pursuing the debtor directly, the creditor lawfully redirects payment streams before funds reach the debtor.

When properly executed, garnishment provides a structured and enforceable path to recovery without prolonged negotiations.

Successful garnishment requires precise identification of the debtor’s assets and income sources.

The attorney must prepare and file detailed applications supported by valid judgment documentation.

Errors or omissions can delay enforcement or expose the creditor to procedural objections.

Accordingly, careful preparation and compliance with court requirements are essential to securing approval.

The attorney gathered and organized all required materials, including the final judgment, proof of service, and financial information linking the debtor to attachable assets.

Each filing was reviewed to ensure consistency with procedural standards and factual accuracy.

By submitting a complete and well supported application, the attorney minimized the risk of rejection or supplemental requests from the court.

This approach allowed the enforcement process to move forward efficiently.

In the enforcement application, the attorney emphasized the debtor’s continued refusal to satisfy the judgment despite having the apparent ability to do so.

The submission highlighted the risk that further delay could result in concealment or depletion of assets.

By clearly framing the urgency and necessity of court intervention, the attorney reinforced the legitimacy of the garnishment request.

This advocacy ensured that the court fully understood the enforcement context and the creditor’s position.