Whether a suspension of compulsory execution based on the name of the debt constituting the basis of the assignment order is allowed after the assignment order of the claim was lawfully served on the garnishee (negative)

In general, in a case where a seizure and assignment order of a claim is issued lawfully in the execution procedure, and the execution procedure for an execution claim becomes effective pursuant to Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the compulsory execution procedure for an execution claim is completed at that time, and the creditor is unable to perform compulsory execution on the basis of the same debt name. Therefore, after the assignment order of a claim is delivered lawfully to a third debtor and the assignment order of a claim is completed, it is not permissible to suspend compulsory execution on the basis of the debt name which is the basis of the assignment order.

Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Special Appellants

Other Party

Daejeon District Court Order 84Ka269 Dated May 14, 1984

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Daejeon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of special appeal are examined.

(1) In a case where the attachment and assignment order of a claim is lawfully issued in the execution procedure on the basis of the name of debt with general executory power, and the execution procedure on the execution claim takes effect pursuant to Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the execution procedure on the execution claim is terminated at that time, and the creditor is unable to execute compulsory execution on the basis of the same name of debt again. Thus, the suspension of compulsory execution on the basis of the name of debt, which forms the basis of the assignment order, after the assignment order has been legally served on the third debtor and the assignment order has been completed, cannot be permitted.

(2) However, according to the records, it is apparent that the assignment order of this case was already issued before the order of the court below was issued, and the above assignment order was delivered to the third debtor around that time, but the court below's determination is not unlawful as to whether the above assignment order was lawfully delivered to the third debtor and whether compulsory execution was terminated or not according to whether it was completed, without deliberation and confirmation, as to whether the above assignment order was against the third debtor's filing of a lawsuit, and the argument is therefore justified.

Therefore, the order 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 judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)