Whether an execution claim is retroactively extinguished when an assignment order becomes final and conclusive even in cases where a seized claim is a future claim, the existence and scope of which are uncertain (affirmative)

When an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, a seized claim shall be naturally transferred to all the creditors within the scope of execution claim retroactively from the time it was served on the garnishee, and at the same time the extinction of execution claim takes effect. The same applies to cases where the seized claim is a future claim containing an ambiguous element of its existence and scope.

Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 84Ma13 Decided June 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1420) Supreme Court Decision 95Da4681 Decided September 26, 1995 (Gong1995Ha, 3521) Supreme Court Order 99Da21 Decided April 28, 199 (Gong199Ha, 1237)

Plaintiff

Defendant (Attorney Jeon Soo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 99Na5316 delivered on November 11, 1999

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

When an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, a seized claim shall be naturally transferred to all creditors within the scope of execution claim retroactively from the time when it was served on the garnishee, and at the same time the extinction of execution claim takes effect. The same applies to cases where the seized claim is a future claim containing an element of uncertainty in its existence and scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 84Ma13, Jun. 26, 1984; Supreme Court Order 95Da4681, Sept. 26, 1995; Order 99Da21, Apr. 28, 1999).

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the defendant recognized the fact that Busan East Branch of District Court issued an order to pay in its judgment based on an executory exemplification of the judgment regarding loans claim No. 97Da785, and 25% per annum from January 20, 198 to the full payment date, and damages for delay from January 20, 198 to May 20, 1998, as the execution claim concerning the principal and the damages for delay from the execution claim amount to the full payment date, the plaintiff received an order of seizure and attachment of the future payment claim to be received every month from Kimhae-si, and the order became final and conclusive on June 11 of the same year. However, the judgment of the court below that the above order was delivered to Kim Jong-si, the obligor of May 27, 1998, and that there was no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assignment order as to the principal and the damages for delay from the execution claim against the plaintiff, which is the execution claim of this case, and that the assignment order had become final and conclusive at the time of assignment order.

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)