(b) The case denying the validity of performance on the ground that the garnishee, who discharged the whole amount of an invalid assignment order, was negligent on the part of the obligee;

B. The case denying the validity of repayment made by the above third-party obligor on the ground that the assignment order of Eul as well as the assignment order of Eul was issued under the conditions that the attachment order of Eul was concurrently issued in the entire amount claim lawsuit filed by Eul, and that the attachment order of Eul was null and void was filed by themselves, but the third-party obligor did not pay the whole amount immediately after being rendered a judgment against Gap due to its failure to present the argument that the attachment order of Eul is concurrent in the entire amount claim lawsuit brought by Eul, but the third-party obligor was aware or could have known that the assignment order of Eul was null and void because it was issued under the conditions that the attachment order of Eul was concurrent with the provisional attachment of Eul.

In the case where the provisional seizure or seizure of a claim competes with each other, even if the execution creditor receives the whole order, the assignment order shall be null and void, but in this case, the entire creditor shall be deemed to be a quasi-Possessor of the claim. Thus, if the third debtor has repaid the whole amount to the creditor with no fault in good faith, the performance shall be valid in accordance with Article 470 of the Civil Act, and if the third debtor does not bear a double payment obligation against other execution creditor, while the third debtor does not bear a bona fide negligence in paying the whole amount, the repayment of the whole amount made by the third debtor to the whole creditor shall be null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu546, Aug. 23, 198).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the judgment of the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the court below determined that the non-party corporation 35,200,00 won (the 32,500,000 won of the judgment of the court of first instance seems to be a clerical error)'s claims for the return of the building lease deposit held against the defendant, based on its macroficial evidence, the plaintiff provisionally seized it on January 28, 1992. Further, the non-party was ordered to seize it again on October 14, 1992 and ordered its attachment on December 9, 1992. Meanwhile, the plaintiff was ordered to attach and seize the above provisional attachment on April 14, 1993. The plaintiff did not file a lawsuit against the non-party 2 for the entire claim against the defendant on May 17, 1993 under the above assignment order, but the defendant asserted that the assignment order of the plaintiff was null and void, and the defendant received the above assignment order of the non-party 193.

However, in light of the evidence and records adopted by the court below, the defendant was already served with the plaintiff's provisional attachment order prior to the date of receiving the whole order of the above non-party, and the plaintiff was appointed an attorney-at-law and filed a lawsuit claiming full payment, and then withdrawn the whole payment lawsuit after clarifying the intention to take collection procedure after obtaining a new attachment and collection order while the lawsuit was pending. In the response (Evidence A No. 5) prepared by the defendant upon counsel's advice in the process of the lawsuit, the defendant voluntarily raised a claim that the plaintiff's assignment order is null and void due to the concurrent attachment or provisional attachment. The plaintiff's assertion that the above non-party's assignment order was conducted between the plaintiff and the above non-party, which was not known by the defendant, was delivered with the judgment against the plaintiff, and the assignment order of the above non-party was null and void since it was done in competition with the plaintiff's provisional attachment. Thus, if the above non-party's assignment order of the above non-party was invalidated or invalidated in the course of the lawsuit against the defendant.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the grounds that there was no negligence on the part of the defendant for the reasons stated in its reasoning. The court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to negligence of the person who performed performance in the repayment to quasi-Possessors, and it is clear that such illegality affected the judgment. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Yong-sik (Presiding Justice)