[2] The nature of the damage in a case where a creditor suffers a loss due to a direct receipt of a claim against a third party obligor or disposal of the claim to the third party obligor because of improper delivery of the provisional attachment order of the claim (=ordinary damage)

[3] The scope of damage in a case where a creditor suffers a loss from the satisfaction of a claim because a provisional seizure order against a claim was delivered illegally by negligence of a mailman in the course of performing his/her duties and the provisional seizure does not take effect

1. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal

A. As to the misapprehension of legal principles as to Article 38 of the Postal Service Act

Article 15 (2) of the Postal Service Act and Article 25 (1) 6 of the Enforcement Rule of the Postal Service Act may be served to enforcement officers (Article 176 (1) of the Postal Service Act), court guards (Article 64 (3) of the Court Organization Act), and junior junior administrative officers (Article 177 (1) of the Postal Service Act), etc. (Article 177 (1) of the Postal Service Act), in addition to mail office clerks, in case of documents related to lawsuits subject to special delivery under Article 176 (2) of the Postal Service Act. In this process, in a case where persons concerned suffer losses in the process, since there is no special provision restricting the state liability, the victim may claim damages against the State. Thus, even if the damages occurred due to the progress of the public official who served the documents related to lawsuits, it is difficult to see that the mail office clerk who served the documents related to lawsuits has the same duty as the above enforcement officer under Article 176 of the Postal Service Act. Accordingly, if the State violated the liability for damages arising from the special delivery may be claimed.

After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below held that the non-party 1, who is a post office affiliated with the defendant's central post office, caused damage to the plaintiff by negligence in the course of handling the delivery of the claim provisional seizure case filed by the plaintiff with the non-party 2 corporation and the non-party 3 debtor as the non-party 3 corporation, and thus, the State has a duty to compensate for the damage suffered by the plaintiff under the State Compensation Act. Such decision of the court below is justified in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no violation of law

B. As to the negligence of a mailman

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning by taking full account of the relevant employment evidence, and judged that there was a negligence in the course of the duty of wrong delivery of the original copy of the decision on provisional seizure to the non-party 1, who is the representative director of the non-party 2, to the non-party 3, in delivering the original copy of the decision on provisional seizure to the non-party 3, who is the non-party 4, the representative director of the non-party 2, and in light of the records

C. As to whether it is a special damage

In a case where the provisional attachment order of a claim does not take effect because the provisional attachment order of a claim did not have been delivered lawfully, if the debtor directly receives the claim against the third debtor or disposes of it in another way, the creditor as the creditor would incur damages that could not obtain the satisfaction of the claim that would have been satisfied if the provisional attachment takes effect. Such damages shall be deemed as ordinary damages in proximate causal relation with the improper delivery of the provisional attachment order.

In the same purport, the court below is justified in holding that the damage suffered by the plaintiff is an ordinary damage in proximate causal relation with the fault of the non-party 1 on duty of the mailman non-party 1 as a result of the improper delivery of the provisional attachment order of this case by the debtor non-party 2 corporation from the third debtor non-party 3 corporation, and there is no error of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the ground of incidental appeal by the Plaintiff

With respect to the scope of damages suffered by the plaintiff due to the non-party 1's negligence in the line of duty, the court below determined that the non-party 3 corporation paid 211,288,000 won to the non-party 2 corporation after the provisional seizure order was lawful, within the limit of KRW 100,000,000, other than the sales commission 211,288,000 won paid to the non-party 3 corporation to the non-party 2 corporation, the amount of KRW 218,818,398 calculated by deducting KRW 125,259,410 won to the non-party 3 corporation and KRW 100,000,000,000 won to the non-party 1 corporation and KRW 500,000,000,000,000 won to the non-party 3 corporation and KRW 2500,000,000,000 won to the non-party 1 corporation.

However, this decision of the court below is not acceptable for the following reasons.

원심판결 이유 및 기록에 의하면, 제3채무자 소외 3 주식회사가 채무자 소외 2 주식회사에 지급하여야 할 분양수수료는 총 387,148,778원인데, 소외 3 주식회사는 소외 2 주식회사에게 이 사건 가압류결정이 송달되기 전에 157,042,380원을, 이 사건 가압류결정이 송달된 이후인 2004. 3. 3.경부터 2004. 8. 3.경까지 211,288,000원을 각 지급하여, 소외 2 주식회사에 대하여 미지급 분양수수료 18,818,398원의 채무를 부담하고 있었고, 그 이외에도 1억 원의 보증금반환채무를 부담하는 등 소외 3 주식회사가 소외 2 주식회사에 대하여 합계 118,818,398원(18,818,398원 + 1억 원)의 채무를 부담하고 있었으며, 소외 2 주식회사 역시 소외 3 주식회사에 대하여 125,259,410원의 채무를 부담하고 있었던 사실, 한편, 원고는 2004. 6. 10. 소외 2 주식회사를 상대로 약정금청구의 본안소송을 제기하였는데, 그 소송에서 2004. 8. 31. “1. 소외 2 주식회사는 원고에게 1억 원을 지급하되, 가. 그 중 5,000만 원은 2004. 11. 30.까지 지급하고, 미지급액에 대하여는 그 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 20%로 계산한 지연손해금을 가산하여 지급하며, 원고는 위 돈을 다 지급받음과 동시에 이 사건 가압류신청을 취하하고 집행해제절차를 이행한다. 나. 나머지 5,000만 원에 대하여는 2005. 3. 31.까지 지급하고, 위 지급기일까지 위 돈을 지급하지 아니한 때에는 지급기일 다음날부터 다 갚는 날까지 연 20%의 비율로 계산한 지연손해금을 가산하여 지급한다. 2. 원고는 나머지 청구를 포기한다.”는 내용으로 임의조정이 성립된 사실, 그런데 소외 2 주식회사가 2004. 11. 30.까지 5,000만 원을 지급하지 아니하자, 원고는 2004. 12. 21. 조정조서에 기하여 ‘이 사건 가압류 청구금액 1억 원 중 5,000만 원에 대한 가압류는 이를 본압류로 전이하고, 소외 2 주식회사의 소외 3 주식회사에 대한 분양수수료 및 보증금 채권 중 376,724원을 위 5,000만 원에 대한 이자 및 집행비용 명목으로 별도로 압류하며, 위와 같이 압류된 합계 50,376,724원의 채권을 원고에게 전부한다’는 내용의 채권압류 및 전부명령을 받았고, 그 무렵 위 전부명령이 확정된 사실, 원고는 2005. 1. 20. 소외 3 주식회사를 상대로 전부금 청구소송을 제기하였는데, 그 소송에서 2005. 11. 15. ‘ 소외 4가 소외 3 주식회사의 사무원 자격으로 수령한 이 사건 가압류결정의 송달은 부적법하여 제3채무자인 소외 3 주식회사에 대하여 효력이 미치지 아니하므로, 소외 3 주식회사가 이 사건 가압류결정 송달 이후 소외 2 주식회사에게 분양수수료 211,288,000원을 지급한 것은 정당하고, 따라서 소외 3 주식회사가 소외 2 주식회사에 지급하여야 할 나머지 분양수수료 및 보증금 합계 118,818,398원에서 소외 2 주식회사가 소외 3 주식회사에 지급하여야 할 125,259,410원을 공제하면 소외 2 주식회사의 소외 3 주식회사에 대한 분양수수료 및 보증금 채권은 존재하지 아니한다’는 이유로 원고 패소판결이 선고되었고, 위 판결은 그 항소심에서 원고의 항소가 기각되어 그대로 확정된 사실, 현재 소외 2 주식회사는 무자력으로서 원고에게 2004. 11. 30.까지 지급하기로 하였던 5,000만 원은 물론 2005. 3. 31.까지 지급하기로 했던 나머지 5,000만 원도 전혀 지급하지 않고 있는 사실 등을 알 수 있는바, 그렇다면 우편집배원 소외 1의 직무상 과실로 인하여 원고가 입은 손해는 이 사건 가압류의 청구금액인 1억 원을 한도로 하여, 그 가압류결정이 제3채무자 소외 3 주식회사에게 적법하게 송달되어 효력이 발생하였다면 원고가 장차 채무명의를 갖추어 이를 본압류로 전이하여 강제집행을 하였을 때 실제로 만족을 얻을 수 있었던 금액이라고 할 것인데, 이 사건 가압류결정이 적법하게 송달되지 아니한 결과 가압류 사실을 알지 못한 소외 3 주식회사가 소외 2 주식회사에게 분양수수료 211,288,000원을 지급함으로써, 소외 3 주식회사의 소외 2 주식회사에 대한 채무는 미지급 분양수수료 및 보증금 합계 118,818,398원만이 남게 되었고, 위 금액에서 소외 2 주식회사가 소외 3 주식회사에 지급하여야 할 1억 25,259,410원을 공제하면 소외 3 주식회사의 소외 2 주식회사에 대한 채무는 더 이상 존재하지 않게 되었으므로, 이 사건 가압류결정이 제3채무자 소외 3 주식회사에게 적법하게 송달되었더라면 소외 3 주식회사로서는 이 사건 가압류결정 송달 이후에 소외 2 주식회사에게 지급한 분양수수료 211,288,000원 중 이 사건 가압류 청구금액 1억 원에 관하여는 원고에게 대항할 수 없다고 할 것이고, 따라서 이 사건 가압류결정의 부적법 송달로 인하여 원고가 입은 손해는 1억 원으로 봄이 상당하다.

On the other hand, in light of the content of mediation reached between the plaintiff and the non-party 2 corporation, it is reasonable to interpret that the plaintiff's intention at the time of voluntary adjustment was 50 million won or more or 50 million won as the same time when the principal and interest on the above 50 million won was paid even after the date, and that the above 50 million won was not paid in full, as well as the above 50 million won as well as 50 million won as the remaining 50 million won as the provisional attachment order. In this case, in which the plaintiff did not receive 50 million won as the provisional attachment order at the time of voluntary adjustment, it cannot be interpreted that the plaintiff did not legally waive the provisional attachment order at the time of the above 50 million won as the provisional attachment order at the time of the above 50 million won as the ground that the remaining 50 million won was not paid for the provisional attachment order at the time of the provisional attachment order at the time of the above 50 million won as the remaining 50 million won as well as the remaining 5000 million won as the provisional attachment order.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the limit of damages suffered by the plaintiff should be limited to KRW 50 million again, on the grounds as stated in its holding, on the premise that the damages suffered by the plaintiff were KRW 93,458,98, and further, on the ground that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the non-party 2 as to compulsory execution, which recognize enforcement force only within the scope of the amount of KRW 100,000,000,000, out of the initial claim amount, through voluntary adjustment, within the scope of receiving until November 30, 2004. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of damages incurred by the tort and the interpretation of the intent of the parties in the discretionary adjustment, which affected the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of incidental appeal by the Plaintiff, the part against the Plaintiff of the lower judgment regarding KRW 53,458,98 of the part against which the Plaintiff lost (the Plaintiff is dissatisfied with this part of the part against the Plaintiff in the lower judgment) and the damages for delay thereon, and the case in this part is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Ill-sook (Presiding Justice)