[1] The validity of a report on the reason that the depositor reported the cause to the executing court due to reasons such as seizure and competition with regard to the claim for recovery of deposit

[2] In a case where a provisional attachment under the Civil Execution Act and a seizure under a disposition on default is made for the right to claim the deposit collection, whether the deposit officer may report a reason under Article 58 (1) of the Rules on Deposit (negative)

[3] In a case where the depositor filed a report on the grounds of competition between the provisional seizure under the Civil Execution Act and the seizure under the disposition on default on the right to claim the recovery of the deposit amount for marine damage, the case affirming the judgment below that the above report on the grounds did not meet the requirements, and thus, the completion period for the demand for distribution cannot arrive and the interruption of the subsequent demand for distribution cannot take effect

[1] Articles 247(1) and 248 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 58(1) of the Deposit Rules / [2] Articles 247(1) and 248 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 58(1) of the Deposit Rules / [3] Articles 247(1) and 248 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 58(1) of the Deposit Rules

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2001Da73107 Decided August 27, 2002 (Gong2002Ha, 2288) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 88Da3686 Decided January 31, 1989 (Gong1989, 347) Supreme Court Decision 9Da3686 Decided May 14, 199 (Gong199Sang, 1162) Supreme Court Decision 2004Da20326 Decided April 12, 2007 (Gong2007Sang, 668)

Plaintiff

Korea

Busan High Court Decision 2009Na6998 Decided October 8, 2009

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where an amount of release from provisional seizure has been deposited in lieu of the object of provisional seizure, the effect of such provisional seizure extends not to the deposit itself, but to the debtor's right to claim the recovery of the deposit, so in cases where other creditors of the debtor have been ordered to seize the said deposit, provisional seizure by the creditor of provisional seizure and seizure by other creditors of the same object of execution shall be the same as those subject to provisional seizure. In addition, when the circumstances have occurred due to the concurrent seizure of the right to claim the recovery of deposit, etc., the deposit officer shall report the reasons to the executing court without delay pursuant to Article 58 (1) of the Deposit Rules (Supreme Court Regulations No. 2356, Aug. 27, 2002; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the execution court shall commence the distribution procedure, and the execution court shall commence the distribution procedure, and it becomes effective to prevent subsequent demand.

On the other hand, the procedure for disposition on default and civil execution procedure are separate procedures, so one procedure cannot interfere with the procedure of the other, while each creditor shall participate in the different procedure by the method prescribed in the different procedure. In the case where each creditor separately seizes the same claim in both procedures and competes with each other, there is no room for recognizing a third party debtor's deposit, as there is no statutory provision on which the procedure for distribution after deposit is made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 88Meu42, Jan. 31, 1989; 9Da3686, May 14, 199). In light of the difference between the procedure for disposition on default and the procedure for civil execution, in cases where seizure is conducted by provisional seizure and the procedure for civil execution pursuant to the Civil Execution Act with respect to the right to claim the recovery of deposit, it shall not be subject to a report on justifiable grounds, regardless of whether it is earlier.

In addition, if there is only provisional seizure, it is not the competition of seizure, and the deposit officer can not report the reason under Article 58 (1) of the Deposit Rules.

Therefore, even if the depositor reported the reason to the court of execution pursuant to Article 58(1) of the Deposit Rule on the ground that the provisional seizure under the Civil Execution Act and the seizure under a disposition on default on the deposit collection claim concurrently coincide with the right to claim the deposit money, such report on the reason that such report on the reason does not meet the requirements, and thus, it cannot be said that the completion period to demand the distribution has arrived or it does not become effective to block the subsequent demand for distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da20326, Apr. 12, 200

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of execution and the court of first instance as cited by the court below, the plaintiff had a claim under the final judgment (2002Kadan868) against 100,000,000,000,000 won against 20,000,000 won against 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00,00,00,00).

In light of the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the report of this case on the ground that the provisional seizure under the Civil Execution Act and the seizure under the disposition on default were concurrent with the claims for recovery of deposit money in this case, and it cannot be filed on the ground that only the provisional seizure was made on the ground that it did not meet the requirements, and thus, the completion period for the demand for distribution has arrived and it cannot be said that the subsequent demand for distribution becomes effective. The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the requirements for the report

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 Park Poe-dae (Presiding Justice)