Requirements to oppose the garnishee who has been ordered to make a provisional seizure with the opposing claim against the garnishee of provisional seizure and to oppose against the creditor of provisional seizure.

Where a garnishee who has been ordered to make a provisional seizure has an opposing claim against a garnishee who has been ordered to make a provisional seizure, and where both claims are set-off at the time of entry into force of the provisional seizure or where the opposing claim has not yet arrived at the time of the seizure, it shall be the case where the repayment period of the passive claim which is the seized claim arrives at the same time as the repayment period of the claims

Article 492 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 82Meu200 Decided June 22, 1982

[Judgment of the court below]

Cho Heung Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for the defendant-appellee

Seoul Central District Court Decision 86Na1140 delivered on November 4, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

As to the Grounds of Appeal:

The court below established the following facts:

In other words, the plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment of the Promissory Notes with the defendant who is the third debtor in order to preserve the execution of the Promissory Notes amounting to 5,00,000 won at face value for the non-party 1 corporation (the non-party 1 corporation). The provisional attachment order was delivered to the defendant on May 23, 1985 as Seoul District Court Branch 85Ka7191, which was issued by the non-party 2, and then the provisional attachment was delivered to the defendant on March 28, 1985. This provisional attachment was delivered to the defendant on March 7, 1985. Meanwhile, the non-party 1 corporation was given the non-party 40,000 won at the time of the payment of the above Promissory Notes Co., Ltd., Ltd., with the non-party 1 to whom the above provisional attachment order had been issued by the non-party 1 corporation on March 28, 1985. The non-party 100 won at each of the above transaction order became due and due.4010

Based on the facts established above, the court below held that in order to set off against a third party obligor who was ordered to make a provisional attachment, where both claims are set-off at the time of the provisional attachment entry into force, or where the opposing claims do not reach the due date at the time of the provisional attachment, each of the above loans against the non-party company should reach the due date prior to or prior to the due date. According to the above facts, according to the above facts, each of the above loans against the non-party company was lost the benefit of the non-party company as of June 12, 1985 subject to the disposition of the suspension of transaction pursuant to the above agreement, and the due date comes after June 16, 1985, which is after the date of the disposition of the suspension of transaction in accordance with the clearing house agreement and the above claim for the return of the above bonds against the non-party company was due to the non-party company's expiration of both claims in accordance with the defendant's exercise of the right of set-off, and therefore, the defendant's objection to set-off is justified.

Therefore, this appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yoon Il-young (Presiding Justice)