(b) In the case of the preceding paragraph, criteria for distinguishing the previous and subsequent litigations;

C. The purport of Article 405(2) of the Civil Act

(d) Personal scope of the disposition prohibited and prohibited by the creditor on behalf of the debtor against the garnishee;

B. In the case of the preceding paragraph, the criteria for determining a prior suit and the subsequent suit shall be followed after the time when the complaint was served on the defendant, i.e., the time when the lawsuit was pending, and it shall not be based even if the procedure for preserving provisional attachment, provisional disposition, etc. has been completed prior to the lawsuit

C. Article 405(2) of the Civil Act relates to the validity of an act of disposal by the debtor, and the debtor is stipulated in Article 405(1) that the creditor under paragraph (1) of the same Article loses the right of management and disposal which obstructs the vicarious exercise of the right of subrogation, which is the object of the subrogation, and does not prohibit the other person from exercising the right of disposal pursuant to the right of subrogation

D. The provisional disposition that was taken by the creditor on behalf of the debtor against the third debtor is aimed at preventing the third debtor from doing any act such as transfer of ownership, etc. in order to preserve his/her right to claim against the debtor, and thus, it does not constitute a prohibition of disposition against the debtor, who is the person having the actual provisional disposition right.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In a case where a creditor subrogation lawsuit is pending in the court on behalf of the same debtor and is released from the court by the same garnishee on behalf of the same debtor, if the subject matter of the lawsuit is the same, the lawsuit which has been pending later in time is not dismissed because it is an unlawful lawsuit filed in violation of the principle of prohibition of double lawsuit (Article 234 of the Civil Procedure Act) (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu1618, Sept. 27, 198). In this case, the criteria for determining the previous lawsuit and the subsequent lawsuit are based on the time when the complaint is pending, that is, after the delivery to the defendant, and even if the procedures for preservation such as provisional seizure and provisional disposition have been completed prior to the lawsuit, it is not necessary to determine whether the previous lawsuit is a prior suit or not.

In addition, the provision of Article 405 (2) of the Civil Act is related to the validity of an act of disposal by the obligor, and it is again again, the obligor under Article 405 (2) of the Civil Act provides that the obligee under Article 405 (1) of the same Act shall lose the right to manage and dispose of the subrogated right to the obligee under Article 405 (1) of the same Act, which is the object of subrogation, and it is reasonable to say that it does not prohibit any litigation that is exercised by another person on behalf of the obligor from exercising the right to exercise the right to dispose of the property by proxy. Thus, the obligee issued a provisional disposition order on behalf of the obligor to prohibit the disposal of the object on behalf of the third obligor, which alone, the obligee filed by another obligee prior to the lawsuit on the merits of the above provisional disposition, claiming the same content as the object of the lawsuit on the merits of the above provisional disposition, which is to be filed in the future, cannot be deemed unlawful

In the lawsuit, since the provisional disposition against the defendant, who is the third debtor on behalf of the debtor, takes effect, the third party asserts that the same claim against the defendant, who is the same third debtor on behalf of the debtor, should not be filed. However, such provisional disposition as the lawsuit is aimed at preventing the third debtor from engaging in an act of disposal such as transfer of ownership, etc. in order to preserve the creditor's right to claim against the debtor, so the third party's decision of provisional disposition is not included in the debtor who is the actual provisional disposition in the third party, and thus, the lawsuit cannot be accepted.

The decision of the court below that the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City constitutes a duplicate lawsuit is justified in light of the above principles of merit and there is no violation of law such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed for lack of reason. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Yong-ju (Presiding Justice)