[2] Where a seizure order issued by another creditor against the same claim subject to seizure is served on the garnishee after the collection by the creditor is completed, whether the seizure is effective upon the collection by the creditor (negative)

[3] Time when the decision of correction to change the debtor under the seizure order against the claim (=when the original copy of the decision was served on the third debtor)

[2] Since an order of seizure of a claim takes effect when the order is served on the garnishee, so long as the claim subject to seizure becomes extinct due to the payment by the garnishee, even if other creditors have applied for an order of seizure of the same claim subject to seizure before the repayment, and further obtained an order of seizure, if the order of seizure was served on the garnishee after the garnishee was paid to the collection right, it cannot be deemed that the seizure takes effect on the money collected by the collection right holder.

[3] In a case where a decision of correction of a seizure order against a claim becomes final and conclusive, it shall take effect retroactively to the time when the original copy of the original decision was served on the garnishee. However, in a case where the decision of correction is legitimate within the limits of permission, it is reasonable to view that the revised decision takes effect only when the decision of correction was served on the garnishee, in a case where it is objectively deemed that the original copy of the original decision would substantially change the identity of the original decision, from the standpoint of the garnishee. It is reasonable from the perspective of the garnishee protection. In a case where the decision of correction is made in substantial change of the contents of the decision, but it is deemed that it is necessary to limit the retroactive effect further in a case where the decision of correction is unlawful but it cannot be seen that the validity of the original copy of the decision is invalid only when the original copy of the decision was served on the garnishee. The same applies to the case of provisional seizure against a claim.

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found 10.1 of Gwangju High Court Decision 20.3 of 10 on May 25, 1995 that Gwangju High Court Decision 20.3 of 10 on the aggregate collection charges of 10.3 of 2 of 2 of 19.2 of 2 of 2 of 3 of 196 of 2 of 196 of 2 of 2 of 196 of 3 of 2 of 195 and 10 of 10 of 2 of 2 of 196 of 2 of 3 of 2 of 196 of 2 of 198 of 196 of 2 of 3 of 2 of 3 of 2 of 195 of 196 of 2 of 3 of 196 of 10 of 2 of 2 of 3 of 195 of 10 of 10 of 2 of 3 of 2 of 1995 of 2 of 2 of 3 of 2 of 3 of 1 mine.

B. Based on the above facts, the court below held that Article 236 of the Civil Execution Act (Article 569 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) provides that "creditors shall report the collected amount to the court." Paragraph (2) of the same Article provides that "in case of seizure, provisional seizure, or demand for distribution prior to the collection report under Paragraph (1), the obligee shall deposit the collected amount and report the reasons therefor immediately." According to the above facts, the court below rejected the defendant's request for correction of provisional seizure as it stated that prior to the defendant's report for collection, the defendant has the duty to deposit the amount of 614,130,910 won received from mining district with the court of execution. Further, since the above provisional seizure order was changed from "Masan Development" to "Masan Development," and it constitutes a case where the original provisional seizure order was substantially changed to the original provisional seizure order, and thus, the defendant's claim that the above provisional seizure order was not effective before the defendant's request for collection.

2. Judgment of the Supreme Court

A. However, we cannot agree with the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

B. Article 569(2) of the former Civil Procedure Act (this Act shall apply to the procedure for the execution of claims, such as a report of collection and a deposit, etc. under the collection order, which has been obtained by the defendant) provides that when the creditor, who has obtained a collection order, has made a seizure, provisional seizure or demand for distribution prior to the report of collection, the collection creditor shall deposit without delay the collected amount. Article 580(1)2 of the same Act provides that the collection creditor may make a demand for distribution prior to the report of collection by the collection creditor, and Article 585(2) of the same Act provides that when the collection creditor deposits the collected amount, the distribution procedure shall commence. In full view of these provisions, the collection creditor shall deposit the collected amount when the creditor conflicts with the creditor who is to receive distribution from the collected amount, i.e., the seizure, provisional seizure, or demand for distribution prior to the report of collection.

However, since a creditor who collects claims with a collection order is a kind of collection agency under the authorization of the court of execution and is engaged in collection from a third party obligor, even as a third party obligor, the claims subject to seizure are extinguished if it is paid to the legitimate collection agency (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10748, May 30, 2003). Meanwhile, since a seizure order takes effect by such order being served on the third party obligor (see Article 561(3) of the former Civil Procedure Act), as long as the claims subject to seizure are extinguished due to the payment of the third party obligor, even if the third party obligor requested a seizure order against the same claims subject to seizure before the repayment and further obtained the seizure order, it cannot be deemed that the seizure order has effect on the money collected by the collection agency after the payment to the third party obligor. Meanwhile, since the original order of seizure becomes final and conclusive, it is reasonable to view that the decision to revise the original order of seizure becomes effective retroactively from the point of view of the Supreme Court’s determination that the original order of seizure becomes invalid from the third party obligor.

C. In light of the above legal principles, although the decision of provisional seizure prior to the plaintiff's correction was delivered to the mine district prior to the payment of the collection money to the defendant, the decision of provisional seizure prior to the correction was effective only on November 1, 2002, when the decision was delivered to the mine district, which is the garnishee, because the debtor was changed from the development to the mining district, thereby making a substantial change in the identity of the original decision of provisional seizure of claims. Thus, the decision of provisional seizure becomes effective only on November 1, 2002, when the decision was delivered to the mine district, which is the garnishee. Since the third debtor for the mining district, the debtor's mining district, was paid the debt to the defendant as the collection right holder on November 1, 201, it cannot be deemed that the amount collected by the defendant reaches the effect of provisional seizure obtained by the plaintiff. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant's collection money constitutes a concurrent case where the creditor to receive

Ultimately, the court below held that the defendant has the obligation to deposit with the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of provisional seizure against claims and the obligation to deposit the collection money by the collection obligee. Therefore, the ground of appeal pointing this out is justified.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is 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 on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)