In a case where an assignment order becomes null and void due to competition between claims, provisional seizure or seizure, the case denying the validity of repayment on the ground that the garnishee was negligent on the ground that the third party obligor was negligent in paying the full amount by failing to properly explain the competition status, etc. of the seizure, and failing to properly explain the competition status, etc. of the third party creditors, and failing to respond to the advising attorney-at-law’s reply based thereon, and then, the entire amount is repaid to all creditors, the advising attorney-at-law failed to properly explain the facts and provide the data during the process of inquiry of the legal relations, and the advising attorney-at-law was unable to review and decide with careful attention, and thus, the third party obligor was determined to pay the full amount by reference to the erroneous reply.

In a case where an assignment order becomes null and void due to competition between claims, provisional seizure or seizure, and the third-party obligor asks an advising attorney-at-law about legal relations by telephone, without properly explaining the competition status of seizure, etc., and asks an advisory attorney-at-law's answer based thereon to the effect that the amount of claims is to be paid except for the amount of seizure, etc. of third-party creditors, and, in a case where an advisory attorney-at-law's answer based thereon is paid in full to all creditors, the case denying the validity of payment on the ground that the third-party obligor was negligent in the third-party obligor, because the advisory attorney-at-law failed to properly explain the facts and provide materials during the process of inquiry of legal relations, and because he failed to properly review and decide

Article 470 of the Civil Act, Articles 563 and 568-2 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea National Housing Corporation (Law Firm Barun, Attorneys Cho Young-han et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Kim Young-il, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na64 102 delivered on March 30, 2000

The judgment below is reversed. The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below found that the non-party 1, non-party 2, non-party 3, non-party 4, non-party 5, and the non-party 1, non-party 4, non-party 5, and the non-party 1, non-party 4, the creditor of non-party 4, non-party 6, and the non-party 2, the non-party 5, and the non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's non-party 1, the non-party 4 and the non-party 5's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party 4 and the non-party 5's non-party 1, the plaintiff's non-party 38.

However, according to the records, since the non-party 4 director of the plaintiff corporation asked the adviser attorney-at-law of the plaintiff corporation by telephone, it is considerably imminent situation at the time of asking the plaintiff corporation to the effect that the construction cost to be paid by the plaintiff corporation remains even after the non-party did not explain the concurrent situation of provisional seizure of claims and the provisional seizure of claims and the seizure price of the non-party, and based on such questioning, the answer was made and the plaintiff paid the above money through internal approval (record 153, 157 page). If the above circumstances are the same, the plaintiff corporation could not properly explain the facts about the adviser-at-law during the telephone questioning process, and thereby the adviser-at-law was unable to make a decision on sufficient review and careful judgment, and the plaintiff corporation also decided to pay the above money by referring to this point. Thus, the error in this series of process shall be deemed to be the negligence on the part of the plaintiff, and thus, it shall not be deemed that the plaintiff's assignment order of this case was invalid for the reason that the plaintiff askedd with the adviser.

Nevertheless, the court below's decision that the defendant, the creditor of the assignment order that the plaintiff null and void, repaid the above money with good faith and without negligence, and thus, is valid as repayment to quasi-Possessor of the claim cannot be deemed to have committed an unlawful act affecting the conclusion of the judgment by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations as to the plaintiff's fault or by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the negligence of the payer's negligence. The part of the grounds of appeal

Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be 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.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)