Whether attachment, provisional attachment, or provisional disposition, which is a ground for interruption of extinctive prescription under Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act, is recognized in the decision to specify property relations (negative)

The procedure to specify property relations is merely an interim procedure between the procedure to assist in compulsory execution, incidental procedure, or preparation of compulsory execution and provisional disposition to facilitate compulsory execution by detecting the debtor's responsible property and the debtor's voluntary performance with respect to the debtor who facilitates compulsory execution and takes out the disclosure of property status by means of discovering the debtor's property on the specified date. However, unlike the procedure of seizure, provisional seizure, and provisional disposition, unlike the procedure to detect the execution object and to facilitate compulsory execution by detecting the execution object, it cannot be acknowledged even as equivalent to the seizure, provisional seizure, and provisional disposition, which are grounds for suspending the extinctive prescription under Article 168 subparagraph 2 of the Civil Act. Accordingly, it is reasonable to view that the interruption of the extinctive prescription by a decision to specify property relations has an effect on the part of the debtor as long as it does not continue the procedure stipulated in Article 174 of the Civil Act, such as further filing a lawsuit within six months from that date, or seizure, provisional seizure, provisional disposition, etc.

Articles 168 subparag. 2 and 174 of the Civil Act; Articles 524-2 and 524-3 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Jae-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 1 and 7 others

Defendant (Attorney Park Jong-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 99Na11548 delivered on May 24, 2000

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

In order for a creditor to realize a claim based on a final and conclusive judgment, if the creditor files a request to specify the debtor’s property relationship with the debtor and the decision ordering the submission of the list of property was served on the debtor, it shall be deemed that the same effect as the peremptory notice, which is the cause of interruption of extinctive prescription, is recognized (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da41118, Feb. 11, 1992). However, the property relation disclosure procedure requires strict procedures, such as attaching the executory exemplification and documents necessary for the commencement of compulsory execution, and imposing the debtor’s duty to attend on the specified date. In addition, the content of the procedure requires indirect compulsory execution, which facilitates compulsory execution by detecting the debtor’s responsible property and makes the debtor voluntarily perform the obligation with respect to the public disclosure of the state of property, unlike the seizure or provisional disposition, the effect of auxiliary or provisional disposition to facilitate compulsory execution by detecting the execution object is nothing more than the intermediate stage between the preparation and compulsory execution procedures, and thus, it cannot be deemed that the seizure or provisional disposition does not exist within the period of extinctive prescription.

The court below held on August 10, 1982 that the designated parties, including the plaintiff, filed a lawsuit against the defendant for damages caused by the plaintiff's traffic accident, and obtained a favorable judgment ordering the defendant to pay the aggregate of KRW 8,678,142 won on August 10, 1982, the Daegu High Court 82Na1412 decided on May 10, 1983, and the defendant's appeal was dismissed on September 13, 1983, and the judgment of the court of first instance became final (the final judgment date is June 7, 1983) (the final judgment date is June 1984). Since the plaintiff did not discover the property to be executed against the defendant on February 21, 1984 and did not provide for compulsory execution on the ground that the extinctive prescription period was not completed by the Supreme Court's decision on June 16, 192, the judgment of the court below was unlawful on the ground that the above extinctive prescription period was not completed.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)