1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below, compiled the evidence adopted in its judgment, filed a lawsuit against the non-party 1, 4 and their families seeking compensation for damages caused by the above accident against the non-party 1, 20,730,609 won, and 45,691,625 won to the non-party 4, and 50,000 won, 1,000 won for each of the remaining plaintiffs, and 1,00,000 won for 1,50,000 won to the non-party 1 and 1,50% per annum from May 8, 1995 to July 28, 1995, and 2,000 won per annum 9,500 won per annum from the 1,500,000 won per annum to the non-party 1 and 50,000 won per annum to the non-party 1 and 50,000 won per annum from the next day to the non-party 2.

Based on the facts found above, the court below held that the defendant is obligated to compensate the non-party for the damages of the non-party to the non-party as the insurer of the above accident. The defendant is obligated to pay the whole amount of the insurance money to the non-party to the non-party to which all of its creditors are entitled to pay to the plaintiffs. The part of the judgment below' claim amounting to 17,218,854 won, 38,68,115 won to the plaintiff 4, 38,668,115 won, 2,000 won to the non-party 5, 1,000 won, 1,000 won to the other plaintiffs, and 2,50,000 won to the non-party's interest rate from May 8, 1994 to July 28, 1995, and the part of the non-party's claim amount with 250% interest rate per annum from the next day to the 199.16.0% interest rate per annum.

2. As to the ground of appeal on the claim for military unit until November 1, 1996

When an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, a seized claim shall, as a matter of course, be naturally transferred to the obligee within the scope of the execution claim retrospectively from the time the assignment order was served on the garnishee, and simultaneously be deemed to have been discharged by the obligor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da4681, Sept. 26, 1995; 98Da15439, Aug. 21, 1998). Therefore, in cases where an assignment order was issued with the principal and the incidental claim as the execution claim until the payment date is made, the repayment date of the principal of the execution claim shall be the time when the assignment order was served on the garnishee, and the execution claim amount shall be the sum between the principal and the incidental claim amount until the assignment order is served on the garnishee, and the execution claim shall be transferred to the entire obligee

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the non-party entered into an automobile accident compensation insurance contract with the defendant to compensate the damage suffered by the non-party due to an accident that occurred while the non-party owned, used, or managed (vehicle registration number omitted)'s (the non-party)'s death or injury caused by the non-party's legal liability for damages. However, the non-party brought a lawsuit against the non-party to seek compensation for damages caused by the above accident, and the judgment became final and conclusive upon the judgment of winning part of the plaintiffs. Meanwhile, according to the records, the general automobile insurance clause applicable to the above insurance contract provides that the insurance company shall pay the non-party the insurance money to be paid to the insured by the non-party as well as the principal and damages caused by the non-party's death or injury caused by the above judgment (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 93Da250409, Apr. 14, 1994; 209Da949895, Apr. 29, 19995).

However, according to the reasoning of the judgment below, the plaintiffs are all or part of the principal amount of damages determined by the above judgment (the plaintiff 1 is 17,218,854 won, the plaintiff 4 is 38,668,115 won, the plaintiff 5 is 2,000 won per annum, and the remaining plaintiffs are 1,00,000 won per annum from May 8, 1994 to July 28, 1995, and 25% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment of principal amount of damages to the defendant under the above insurance contract. The plaintiff 1 is liable to pay the total amount of damages to the defendant as 9% per annum from the 15th day after the date of execution to the 196th day of execution claim to the 196th day of execution claim and 9th day of assignment order, and the amount of damages to the defendant as 16th day of execution claim and assignment order.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims in this case, which were sought as the principal of the whole amount of the claim including the part of the claim, on the ground that they were entirely entitled to insurance claims within the scope of the execution bond under the execution bond attachment and assignment order, should be accepted in full on the ground that the principal of the above execution bond and the part corresponding to the incidental claim until November 1, 1996, among them, should be accepted in full. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the insurer's compensation obligation under the automobile insurance contract, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the assigned claim under the assignment order, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, on November 1, 1996, on the ground that it is reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to pay the insurance claim, which is the whole debt, under the premise that it is not the principal of the execution bond but the damages for delay. The remaining part is dismissed.

3. As to the grounds of appeal on the claim for military unit after November 2, 1996

As seen earlier, the sum of the principal amount of the execution bond and the amount of the incidental bond up to November 1, 1996 to the Plaintiffs according to the seizure and assignment order of the claim in this case is equal to the sum of the principal amount of the execution bond in this case and the amount of the incidental bond in this case. Thus, the part of the incidental claim after November 2, 1996, which exceeds the above amount in this case, cannot be deemed as the claim for the principal of the whole amount, and it shall be deemed as the damages for delay as to the part (the principal amount of the execution bond) of the whole amount.

Therefore, the part of the incidental claim after November 2, 1996 among the grounds of appeal is also the principal of the full amount, and all of the part of the judgment below which points out an error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or inconsistent reasoning, incomplete deliberation, or violation of the Supreme Court precedents is not acceptable.

4. Therefore, the plaintiffs' appeal is with merit only to the part concerning the incidental claim by November 1, 1996, and therefore, the part against the plaintiffs as to this part of the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed. Since it is deemed sufficient to render a judgment based on the facts established by the court below, the part against the plaintiffs as to the incidental claim by November 1, 1996 among the judgment of the court below shall be reversed and it shall be decided directly by the Supreme Court.

As seen earlier, the Defendant is obligated to pay to Plaintiff 1 the principal of the entire amount of the instant case, KRW 17,218,854, KRW 38,68,115, KRW 2,000 to Plaintiff 4, and KRW 50,000 to Plaintiff 5, respectively, and KRW 1,00,000 to the rest of the Plaintiffs, and annual interest rate from May 8, 1994 to July 28, 1995; and KRW 25,000 per annum from the next day to November 1, 1996. Accordingly, since the part corresponding to the difference between the above recognized portion of the incidental claim and the cited part of the original judgment, the judgment of the first instance is unfair, and thus, the part of the judgment of the court of first instance to be revoked and the part corresponding to the difference shall be paid to each of the Plaintiffs.

5. Therefore, the part against the plaintiffs falling under the part of the judgment of the court below which ordered payment is reversed, and the same part of the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked, and the payment order is ordered. The remaining appeals by the plaintiffs are dismissed without merit. The whole costs of lawsuit are five minutes, and three minutes of the costs of lawsuit are five minutes, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)