Whether the deposit for repayment on the ground of the non-existence of creditor and the deposit for execution on the ground of seizure may be made together (affirmative) and measures to be taken by the executing court for this case

Article 487 (latter part) of the Civil Act provides that "where the person who has performed the obligation is unable to identify the creditor without any negligence" means where the creditor or the person who has the right to receive the repayment exists, but even if the debtor fulfills his due care, it is difficult to identify who is the creditor. Therefore, in the event that there is an assertion that the notification of assignment of the claim has been issued with respect to a claim under a special agreement prohibiting or restricting the assignment of the claim but the withdrawal or invalidity of the notification of transfer has been made thereafter, the garnishee is doubtful about the validity of the assignment of the claim, and there is a ground for the deposit for repayment based on the confirmation of the creditor in the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act. If multiple claims, provisional seizure or seizure order have been issued after the assignment of the claim do not bring an opposing power to the assignment of the claim under Article 581 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, the obligor is deemed to have the effect of the deposit of the claim under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 581 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act, and such deposit becomes effective as a new deposit of the execution.

Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 96Da2583 delivered on April 26, 1996 (Gong1996Sang, 1714) Supreme Court Decision 99Da48726 delivered on December 10, 199, Supreme Court Decision 2000Da55904 delivered on December 22, 2000 (Gong2001Sang, 354)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 1 and 40 others

Defendant (Attorney Kim Tae-tae et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 99Na34323 delivered on January 18, 2000

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code provides that "if the person who has performed the obligation is unable to identify the obligee without any negligence," the obligee or the person who has the right to receive the repayment exists objectively, but even if the obligor fulfills his due care, it is difficult to identify who is the obligee. Thus, in the case where the obligor's notification of assignment of the claim under a special contract for prohibition of or restriction on transfer was issued but there is an assertion that the notification of assignment is cancelled or invalid, the garnishee is doubtful about the validity of the assignment of claim, and the third obligor has a ground for the deposit on the ground that it is impossible for the obligee to confirm the validity of the notification of assignment of claim. If multiple claims are issued after the assignment of assignment of claim and there is no opposing power of the assignment of claim under Article 581 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code, the obligor can make the deposit of the claim more than 196 of the Civil Procedure Code to be made on the ground that the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code and Article 581 (1) of the Civil Procedure Code becomes effective as the obligee's deposit of the same Act.

According to the facts established by the court below, non-party 1 corporation and non-party 1 corporation (hereinafter referred to as "Gangsan case") were 0. 80 won on June 1, 1998, 198, 80,000 won out of 10,000 won, 00 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 60,00 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 60,00 won, 10,000 won, 10,000 won, 9,00 won, 10,000 won, 9,06,000 won,

In light of the above circumstances, the execution court cannot pay dividends of the above amount to the execution creditors including the plaintiff and the defendant before the judgment on the validity of the claim between the plaintiff and the defendant is confirmed. For the above reasons, it is just to determine that the execution court has made the distribution schedule of 80,000,000 won of the above total deposit amount of 110,095,650 won, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the distribution, and contrary to the above, the court below's assertion that the distribution schedule against the defendant is unlawful, and it can not be accepted as a sole opinion in the grounds of appeal that the distribution procedure can not be implemented without the need to confirm the reversion of the above amount of 80,000,000 won among the above total deposit amount of 110,000 won.

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who reviewed the appeal.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)