Even if there is no genuine competition for seizure of claims, Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to cases where exemption from liability by deposit may be acknowledged to the garnishee.

In light of the legislative intent of Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, even in cases where multiple seizure orders are issued for the same claim, even if the total amount of seizure does not exceed the amount of seizure claims subject to seizure due to the legal nature of each seizure, and it cannot be viewed as concurrent seizure within the original meaning, in cases where there are objective circumstances where it is difficult to determine whether there exists competition, such as the priority order, from the third obligor’s standpoint, it is reasonable to apply mutatis mutandis the relevant provision to the third obligor to grant immunity by deposit.

Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 347, Jan. 3, 1989, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

(Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Korea

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 95Na35936 delivered on December 7, 1995

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act recognizes the right to deposit the amount of obligation with the garnishee who has been served a demand for distribution as to a monetary claim under Article 581(1) of the same Act, in a case where there are many persons asserting the right to the claims subject to seizure in the compulsory execution procedure against the claims and where the above amount of claims cannot be satisfied to all persons, allowing the garnishee to examine whether the claims are available for distribution or duplicate seizure and whether each seizure is appropriate for the third debtor, and to have the true right holder or the preferential right holder distribute appropriate dividends to the third debtor is likely to cause an extremely heavy burden on the third debtor and damage the appropriateness of the compulsory execution procedure. Thus, in light of the purport, even if multiple seizure orders are issued for the same claim, even if each seizure order does not exceed the amount subject to seizure in its original sense due to the legal nature of each seizure, it is reasonable to recognize the exemption from liability with the third debtor by analogical application of the above provision if there are objective circumstances such as the issue of priority from the third debtor, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 198Da384, 1984, 198.).

(5) According to the facts duly established by the court below, the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 applied for the above 1,850 square meters to the defendant 1 and the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's order for the above 1,241,64,040 won on December 21, 194. The non-party 1 and the non-party 2 applied for the above 2's order for the above 1,264,154 won on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's order for the non-party 1 to the non-party 2's above 1 and the non-party 2's order for the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's order for the above 1,80 won on the non-party 1 and the non-party 2's order for the non-party 2's seizure and collection of the above 1,000 won on the non-party 3's bonds.

(3) According to the above facts, the above attachment and assignment order of the plaintiff was issued to the defendant who is the third debtor, and ① the above non-party 1's right to claim the payment of deposit money of the above non-party 1; ② the relationship of attachment is ② the non-party 1's right to subrogation based on the mortgage under Articles 370 and 342 of the Civil Act; ② the non-party 1's right to claim the payment of deposit money of the above non-party 4; ② the above assignment order of the non-party 1's right to claim the payment of 300,000 won due to the preferential payment of the money which is the object of subrogation before the seizure under Article 370 and 342 of the Civil Act, ③ the above assignment order of the non-party 1's right to claim the payment of 40,000 won to the defendant. ② The above assignment order of the non-party 1's right to claim the payment of deposit money of the above 400,000,00 won.

However, according to the above facts, it appears that the attachment and assignment order of the above third party acquired by the plaintiff appears to be a separate attachment for the purpose of seizure at the time when the attachment and assignment order was delivered to the third party debtor, the defendant, who is the third party debtor, and the total amount of the attachment exceeds the amount of the claims to be seized, and it appears that there is a concurrence of claims in appearance. ③ The defendant, following the delivery date of the attachment and assignment order, again received the above fourth order based on subrogation and received the assignment order, and again received the notification of the attachment and assignment order, ⑤ The defendant was notified of the attachment and assignment order based on subrogation, and ⑤ Despite such appearance, in order to determine the validity of the attachment and assignment order, the above legal principles on subrogation, the relationship between the attachment of claims for compensation for losses pursuant to land expropriation, and the seizure of the deposited compensation pursuant to the Land Expropriation Act, and the legal principles on the timing of determining the validity of the assignment order. Therefore, it is reasonable to judge whether the defendant (public official) as the defendant's deposit is a public official or the assignment order.

Therefore, this case appears to be concurrent in external form, and it constitutes an objective circumstance in which it is difficult to determine the concurrence of claims by the garnishee. Therefore, it is reasonable to apply Article 581 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act by analogy. Thus, as long as the defendant, who is the third debtor, made a deposit for execution and reported the reasons to the executing court, it shall be deemed that the defendant is exempted from liability.

The court below's explanation of its reasons is somewhat insufficient, but in this regard, it is just to recognize the exemption from liability due to the execution deposit by the defendant who is the third debtor, based on the judgment that Article 581 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall be applied mutatis mutandis to this case, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of the seizure

Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed and all costs of appeal shall be assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)