According to the records, the creditor filed a lawsuit against the garnishee who is the garnishee who is liable to deposit the amount of debt under Article 248(3) of the Civil Execution Act, pursuant to Article 249(1) of the Civil Execution Act, to demand the deposit of the amount of debt (Seoul District Court 2006Gahap2265) from the status of the execution creditor who has received a collection order, pursuant to Article 249(1) of the Civil Execution Act. The judgment of this case that "the debtor shall pay to the creditor 410,028,098 won. The payment of the above amount shall be made by deposit (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"). The judgment of this case becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the above collection lawsuit filed by the creditor is a lawsuit seeking the collection of the amount of debt by deposit and the judgment of this case cited this order is a performance order for the payment of the amount of debt by deposit method. Thus, the creditor can seize and collect the monetary claim held by the debtor as a compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment of this case.

Nevertheless, the lower court revoked the first instance judgment and dismissed the instant application, on the grounds that the claim indicated in the judgment of this case is not a monetary claim, and thus, the seizure and collection order with the title of execution is not permissible. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine as to compulsory execution based on the deposit judgment against the garnishee. The allegation in the grounds of reappeal assigning this error

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)