[2] The case holding that, in case where a claim for promissory notes, which is an execution bond, is extinguished by the determination of an assignment order, a loan claim secured by a promissory notes bond at that time shall also be extinguished as fixed in the same amount

[2] The case holding that, in case where a claim for promissory notes, which is an execution bond, is extinguished by the confirmation of an assignment order, a loan claim, which is a underlying claim secured by a promissory notes bond at that time, shall also be extinguished as a final repayment in the same amount

1. As to the grounds of appeal on the extinction of enforcement claim under an assignment order and the extinction of loan claims based on a credit transaction agreement No. 1

The court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its reasoning based on the evidence of its determination, and determined on August 13, 2004, 2004, when the assignment order of this case was established and KRW 1,950,000,000, out of the Defendant’s collateral against the Nonparty, a third debtor, was transferred to the Plaintiff as a whole, while maintaining its identity, the Plaintiff’s claim against a promissorysory note was extinguished as a repayment. The above promissory note was issued and issued as collateral of a loan claim under a credit transaction agreement, and thus, the execution bond of this case was extinguished as a repayment equal to the amount of a loan claim based on a credit transaction agreement, which is the underlying claim, at the time of the extinguishment of payment. Thus, the court below determined that the assignment order was appropriated for the loan transaction agreement’s repayment based on the loan transaction agreement as of August 13, 2004 as of August 13, 2004.

The main text of Article 231 of the Civil Execution Act provides that "where an assignment order has become final and conclusive, the obligor shall be deemed to have discharged his/her obligation when the assignment order was served on the garnishee." This is interpreted to have the same effect as the execution bond is repaid according to an assignment order in accordance with the execution order, corresponding to the acquisition of exclusive rights to the entire claim by the execution obligee according to the assignment order. Therefore, if a promissory note obligor with a promissory note payment claim as an execution bond and a confirmation is made upon the issuance of the seizure and whole order of the claim against the garnishee, if the obligor with a promissory note payment claim as an execution bond becomes final and conclusive upon the execution order, the obligor shall transfer the entire claim retroactively to the obligee when the assignment order was served on the garnishee, and this is treated as the same as the obligor makes

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the aforementioned legal doctrine and the record, we affirm the lower court’s determination that, at the time of termination by the determination of an assignment order, a promissory note credit, which is an executory bond, was finally extinguished due to repayment as much as the same amount of loans based on the first credit transaction agreement, which is a underlying claim secured by the said promissory note credit

The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the validity of an assignment order and the relationship between the bill and the existing underlying claim, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

2. As to the relationship between the instant comprehensive collateral guarantee contract and the notarial deed

The court below determined, as stated in its reasoning, that the defendant et al. provided the No. 1,950,000 won loan obligations based on the No. 1 credit transaction agreement at the plaintiff's request, and that each of the instant comprehensive collateral guarantee by the defendant et al. was made on the date of the No. 1 credit transaction agreement, and the defendant et al. guaranteed for the remaining debtors except himself/herself, and that the instant comprehensive collateral guarantee is to guarantee the obligations of the defendant et al. under the No. 1 credit transaction agreement, and thus, it is deemed that the instant comprehensive collateral guarantee is an overlapping security with the instant notarial deed, and that the defendant was exempted from other responsibilities within the scope of its performance pursuant to Article 3 (2) of the instant comprehensive collateral guarantee agreement.

The issue of whether the obligations secured by the comprehensive collateral guarantee and the obligations secured by the promissory note overlap as separate obligations, or as the same obligations, is an issue of interpreting the intent of the contracting parties. In light of the aforementioned legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below that the comprehensive collateral guarantee of this case and the No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 No. 1 notarial deed are an overlapping security to guarantee the obligations of the Defendant, etc. under the 1 notarial deed is justified.

The court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the interpretation of the disposal document as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Cha Han-sung (Presiding Justice)