Where seizure of claims conflicts with each other, the effect of performance to the whole creditor by the third obligor with no fault in good faith;

In this case, the third obligor's repayment to the creditor of concurrent seizure.

Where repayment to the whole creditor of the garnishee is not a bona fide fault, the validity of the repayment, and the legal relationship in case where an employee of the third obligor has paid damages to the creditor who has seized the same.

A. Where the attachment of a claim competes with one of the execution creditors, if one of the execution creditors receives the assignment order, the assignment order becomes null and void, but if the third debtor fully pays the payment to the creditor in good faith and without negligence, it is valid as repayment to the quasi-Possessor of the claim. Therefore, the third debtor’s obligation to the execution creditor is extinguished, and the third debtor is not liable for double performance to the execution creditor, and the third debtor cannot file a claim for return of unjust enrichment by asserting the invalidity of the assignment order against the whole creditor

B. In this case, the concurrent seizure obligee may claim a return of unjust enrichment against the entire obligee within the scope of the amount that the obligee should have received, and if the garnishee subrogated to the execution obligee to pay the amount that the obligor should have received as a dividend, it is a performance by a third party without interests

C. In this case, if the garnishee is not bona fide and without fault when he fully pays the full amount to the obligee, the third obligor’s repayment is not effective, and if the third obligor’s employee was liable for damages to the concurrent seizure obligee, then if the third obligor’s employee was liable for damages to the concurrent seizure obligee, the third party’s repayment is the third party’s repayment, and the third party’s repayment may seek the return of unjust enrichment against the third party obligee by subrogation of the third party obligor.

Articles 57 and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu High Court Decision 77Na799 delivered on May 31, 1978

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

Examining the evidence presented by the lower court, we affirm the fact-finding of the lower court, and it is difficult to readily conclude that there is a violation of the rules of evidence against the rules of evidence in the process of fact-finding.

The issue is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

Where attachment of claims conflicts, even if one of the execution creditors receives an order of assignment, the assignment order shall become null and void.

However, in this case, if a third party obligor has repaid the whole amount to a creditor under an assignment order that is null and void, it shall be deemed that the entire obligee constitutes quasi-Possessor of the claim under Article 470 of the Civil Act. If a third party obligor is bona fide and without fault, its performance is valid as repayment to quasi-Possessor of the claim under the same provision. The third party obligor is extinguished, and the third party obligor is not liable for double repayment to the execution creditor. The third party obligor is not liable for double payment to the execution creditor. It shall be deemed that the third party obligor cannot make a claim for return of unjust enrichment on the ground that the assignment order is null and void (see Supreme Court Decision 70Da129 delivered on March 24, 1970). Thus, in relation to the joint obligee, there is no legal ground to deny the amount received by the whole obligee through an assignment order that is null and void, and thus, the concurrent obligee cannot receive the claim for return of unjust enrichment from the third party obligor to the entire obligee within the scope of the amount to be paid by the third party obligor.

However, if the garnishee did not have acted in good faith and without fault when he repaid the full amount, the repayment of the full amount made by the garnishee to the entire creditor shall be deemed to be null and void, and since it may be a tort against the concurrent seizure creditor, the third debtor is liable to compensate for the damages arising therefrom to the concurrent seizure creditor. In this case, if the third debtor's employee (the third debtor's employee who caused the above liability to the third debtor by negligence) compensates the concurrent seizure creditor of the above damages, it would be the repayment of the third party's interest, and the third party's employee (the third party debtor's employee) can seek the return of the unjust enrichment against the defendant by subrogation of the third party debtor in accordance with the right of statutory subrogation of the obligee.

The court below established the facts as follows. The non-party 1 issued a promissory note of 1,850,000 won at the Busan branch of the National Bank at the place of payment. The non-party 2 submitted to the above non-party 1's National Bank a set deposit amount of 1,850,000 won which is its par value, and the defendant deposited to the non-party 1's bank as the holder of the above promissory note on September 4, 1976. The non-party 2 attached the above non-party 1's claim to return the separate deposit amount to the above non-party 1's above non-party 1's above non-party 1's above non-party 1's bank's above non-party 1's above non-party 5's claim to the above non-party 1's non-party 1's above non-party 1's above non-party 1's claim to return the above non-party 1's claim to the above non-party 1's bank.

Thus, the defendant's assignment order against the above non-party 1's third debtor of the above non-party 1 against the above non-party 1's non-party 1 is null and void, and in general, when the repayment is made to the whole creditor under an invalid assignment order, it shall be deemed good faith and without fault.

However, in this case, we examine together the evidence of the judgment below and the facts that the plaintiff who was a working person who paid the whole amount of the above non-party bank as an agent for the above non-party bank, was negligent in the judgment, and the non-party 2, who was a concurrent seizure creditor, voluntarily compensates for damages. The court below's decision that the non-party bank, a garnishee, paid the whole amount to the defendant is due to the negligence of the non-party bank, and that the fact constitutes a tort against the creditor who seized competition, is reasonable, and therefore, the court below's decision that accepted the plaintiff's claim on the premise that the plaintiff has the right of statutory subrogation as stated

Therefore, among the arguments, the argument that the above non-party bank did not have the right of voluntary subrogation of the payer in the principal case because it was not intentional or negligent in the bank outside the Dong branch in the repayment of the full amount, is without merit. In addition, it cannot be concluded that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the requirements for bond seizure and subrogation, the lack of reasoning, and the omission of judgment.

The essay is groundless.

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

Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)