[1] The effect of the third party obligor's repayment to the legitimate collection authority

[2] Where a seizure or provisional seizure order issued by another creditor against the same claim subject to seizure is served on the garnishee after the collection by the creditor is completed, whether such seizure or provisional seizure may affect the collection amount (negative)

[3] In a case where other creditors have applied for an order of seizure or provisional seizure against the same seized claim before the collection creditor's report on collection was filed, whether such order can be viewed as a demand for distribution (negative)

[1] The creditor who collects the claim upon obtaining a collection order is a kind of collection agency according to the execution court's authorization, and thus, the third debtor is also entitled to collect from the third debtor. Thus, if the third debtor pays to the legitimate collection authority, the seizure claim becomes extinct.

[2] A seizure and provisional seizure order against a claim takes effect when the order is served on the garnishee (Article 227(3) and Article 291 of the Civil Execution Act), so long as the claim subject to seizure is extinguished due to the payment by the garnishee, even if other creditors apply for the seizure and provisional seizure order against the same claim subject to seizure prior to the repayment, and further obtain the seizure and provisional seizure order, even if it is considered that the seizure and provisional seizure order against the claim subject to seizure was served on the garnishee after the garnishee paid to the collection right, it cannot be deemed that the seizure and provisional seizure takes effect on the money collected by the collection right holder.

[3] Even if the collection creditor applied for an order of seizure or provisional seizure against the same seized claim before the collection creditor filed a report on the collection, it shall not be deemed a legitimate demand for distribution concerning the relevant claims collection case.

[1] Articles 229 and 232 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Articles 227(3), 229, 232, 236, and 291 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Articles 236 and 247(1)2 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] [2] Supreme Court Decision 2003Da29937 decided Jan. 13, 2005 (Gong2005Sang, 235) / [1] Supreme Court Decision 86Meu988 decided Sep. 9, 1986 (Gong1986, 1306) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da10748 decided May 30, 2003 (Gong2003Ha, 1424)

Posco Construction Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Gyeongsung, Attorneys Cho Yong-hwan et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Choi Young-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 2008Na413 decided July 16, 2008

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Article 236(2) of the Civil Execution Act provides that when a creditor who has obtained a collection order and received a request for collection has made a seizure, provisional seizure, or demand for distribution before a report on collection has been made, the collection creditor shall immediately deposit the collected amount and report the reasons therefor. Article 247(1)2 of the same Act provides that the collection creditor may make a demand for distribution until the report on collection has been made by the collection creditor, and Article 252 Subparag. 2 of the same Act provides that the collection creditor shall commence the distribution procedure when the collection creditor deposits the collection amount. In full view of these provisions, the collection creditor shall deposit the collection amount when there exists another creditor who received a distribution from the collected amount, i.e., when the creditor has made a seizure or provisional seizure against the collected amount or before the report on collection has been made by the collection, and even if the garnishee has received a legitimate payment from the third party debtor as the collection agency under the authorization of the execution court, the collection order may also be deemed to have been extinguished if the garnishee has made a legitimate payment to the collection creditor before the seizure and provisional seizure order had been made.

In light of the aforementioned legal principles, the court below acknowledged that the defendant's request for provisional seizure against the non-party company's Daegu Agricultural Cooperative on April 16, 2007 for the provisional seizure and collection order against the non-party company's Daegu Agricultural Cooperative and reported the collection to the executing court on April 23, 2007. Meanwhile, on April 16, 2007, the plaintiff filed an application for provisional seizure against the non-party company's deposit claims against the non-party company's Daegu Agricultural Cooperative on April 18, 2007 and delivered the provisional seizure order to the non-party company's Daegu Agricultural Cooperative. The court below rejected the plaintiff's request for provisional seizure and provisional seizure order against the non-party company's non-party company's deposit claims against the non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's deposit claims against the non-party company's non-party company's creditor's non-party company's non-party company's non-party.

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

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)