Method of Provisional Attachment, Attachment and Assignment Order against Promissory Notes and Validity of Assignment Order

The provisional attachment or seizure on the securities must take possession of it, so the provisional attachment or seizure on the promissory note which the delivery does not take effect, and therefore the provisional attachment or seizure on the promissory note which the delivery does not take effect, and it cannot take effect even if the order was issued in whole.

Articles 566 and 707 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 73Da1345 delivered on June 11, 1962

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Fisheries Cooperatives of the Dondo Island

Gwangju District Court Decision 73Gahap75 decided Jan. 1, 200

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiffs.

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay 1,195,000 won to the plaintiff, etc.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant in the first and second instances.

A provisional execution may be effected only under the above paragraph (2).

The Nonparty had a promissory note amounting to KRW 3,936,869 at face value against the Defendant Cooperative. However, on December 6, 1972, the Plaintiff et al. received a provisional attachment order of claims against the Plaintiff et al., the Nonparty et al., the obligor, and the third obligor’s partnership from the Gwangju District Court’s interest support on December 6, 1972, and on December 10, 72, the decision was served on the Defendant Cooperative; thereafter, on August 22, 1973, the Plaintiff et al. received a claim attachment and assignment order from the Gwangju District Court’s interest support for KRW 1,195,00 from the Gwangju District Court’s interest support for KRW 73ta127,128, and on August 25, 1973, there is no dispute between the parties.

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s attorney asserted that he sought the payment of the full amount to the defendant, and the defendant's non-compliance with this, so it should take possession of scambling, provisional seizure or seizure of securities (see Article 566 of the Civil Procedure Act). (See Article 566 of the Civil Procedure Act) It cannot be said that the provisional seizure or seizure has occurred because there is no data to be recognized that the promissory notes of this case possessed it, and therefore it cannot be said that

Therefore, the plaintiff et al.'s claim of this case based on the premise that the above provisional seizure or assignment order is valid is without merit, and thus it is not necessary to determine further, it shall be dismissed. Accordingly, the judgment of the court of first instance, which is different from this, is just and without merit, and the appeal by the plaintiff et al. is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the losing party.

Judges Kim Jae-ju (Presiding Judge) Yang Young-tae Kim