[채권추심][집19(3)민,085]
(a) The validity of two assignment orders following the provisional seizure of claims are concurrent; and
B. Even if the compulsory execution was caused by negligence with the invalid whole claim, it cannot be deemed as a defense to the person who acquired the collection order.
(c) A person who has received a collection order may request only part of it.
A. Since an assignment order on a concurrent claim with seizure is null and void, even in a lawsuit claiming the entire amount of money, a garnishee was entitled to defend as a ground for seizure competition even in the lawsuit claiming the entire amount of money, and therefore, even if it could not be subject to compulsory execution subsequent thereto, and if the garnishee neglected this, thereby making a judgment and became subject to compulsory execution, thereby having reached the repayment of the debt, the garnishee cannot make the allegation that the claim has been extinguished due to the above repayment as an execution creditor for the said claim, as a defense against the person who reached the claim for collection upon obtaining a collection order as an execution creditor for the said claim.
(b) A person ordered to collect claims may request only a part of the order.
Articles 564, 565, and 582(1) of the Civil Procedure Act
Plaintiff
Korean Commercial Bank, Inc.
Seoul High Court Decision 71Na967 decided July 16, 1971
The appeal shall be dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The grounds of appeal No. 1 by the defendant's attorney are examined.
According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the non-party 1's claim amounting to 1,500,000 won of retirement allowance against the defendant bank was obtained from the non-party 1, and the plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment for the purpose of preserving the claim amounting to 1,50,000 won against the non-party 1, and then notified the non-party 2 who had executory power over the above non-party 1's claim, and subsequent execution of the claim amount pursuant to the provisional attachment order with executory power over the plaintiff 1, and the attachment and assignment order issued by the plaintiff was concurrent with the non-party 2's assignment order for the above provisional attachment and assignment order for the non-party 1's claim was non-party 2's non-party 2's non-party 1's non-party 2's non-party 3's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 2's allegation that the above claim was non-party 2's defense against the above non-party 3's defense was acquired.
The second ground of appeal is examined.
As seen earlier, the original judgment is justified in the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant for payment of the total amount of KRW 1,500,000,000, which is part of the judgment, and the interest rate of KRW 750,000 after the due date for payment. This is so-called a collection order’s effect on the total amount of the claim, the Plaintiff may claim payment of KRW 1,50,000, which is the total amount of the seized claim, in accordance with the legal principles on the whole amount of the claim. However, it can be viewed that the Plaintiff accepted the claim within the limit of the amount of KRW 750,00,00 which is the total amount of the seized claim, and this article is just and unlawful. Therefore, there is no ground to argue that there is a misunderstanding of the nature of the collection order.
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of the appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Kim Young-nam Kim Young-ho