Where a provisional attachment is made on the property owned by the obligor by claiming a part of the branch claim as the preserved claim, the extent of the claim having the effect of interrupting prescription.

02. Whether the decision of provisional seizure can be automatically null and void in cases where the debtor who was alive at the time of application has died immediately before the decision of provisional seizure or has become decided in the name of the debtor without taking over the procedure of provisional seizure.

If an obligee makes a provisional seizure on the property owned by the obligor by claiming a part of the provisional seizure claim as the preserved claim, the interruption of prescription shall be effective only for the part of the preserved claim, and the interruption of prescription shall not take effect for the remaining claim not included in the preservation claim by provisional seizure.

02. In the decision of provisional seizure ordered immediately upon request by only one creditor without undergoing examination procedures or pleading procedures, the decision of provisional seizure cannot be deemed to be null and void automatically on the ground that the debtor who was alive at the time of application has died immediately before the decision was made, or that the decision of provisional seizure was made without taking over the procedure.

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant 1 and two others, Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul High Court Decision 74Na1781 delivered on June 4, 1975

All appeals by both the plaintiff and the defendant are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant.

First, we examine the Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal.

In cases where an obligee claims part of the portion of the provisional claim as the preserved claim and provisional attachment is made against the property owned by the obligor, the interruption of prescription shall be effective only for the part of the preserved claim, and the interruption of prescription shall not take effect for the remaining claims not included in the preservation claim by provisional attachment (see this case, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 69Da3, Mar. 4, 1969). Since the theory cannot be said to affect any part of the property subject to provisional attachment, it cannot be said that the damage claim amount of the Plaintiff’s damage claim amount of KRW 1,528,614, which the court below asserted in the provisional attachment recognized by the court below, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the interruption of prescription, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the scope of the interruption of prescription, or in the failure to exhaust all deliberations.

We can not be employed as it is based on the above other view.

Next, we examine the Defendant’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

According to the evidence presented by the court below and the whole purport of the argument shown in the records of this case, the plaintiff clearly stated that the provisional seizure of the court below's approval was conducted to preserve the execution of the damage claim of this case and that the ground for the application for provisional seizure was stated as the cause of the damage claim of this case. In light of the whole paper, the court below's judgment that the provisional seizure was suspended as a provisional seizure is just and it cannot be said that there was a misunderstanding of the legal principles as to the effective scope of the damage claim of this case, such as the theory of lawsuit, and it cannot be said that the court below's judgment that held that the provisional seizure of this case was suspended as the cause of the damage claim of this case's tort of this case, and as long as the debtor was alive at the time of the application, the provisional seizure order of this case was made without the debtor's death or taking over the procedure, and therefore, it cannot be argued that the provisional seizure as the cause of the interruption of prescription is justified and there is no other opinion to appeal based on this opinion.

Therefore, all appeals by the plaintiff and the defendant are without merit, and they are dismissed, respectively. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Shin Young-chul (Presiding Justice)