[1] The time when execution of provisional seizure upon withdrawal of a claim for provisional seizure is invalidated

[2] In a case where an assignment order is null and void because it was issued in concurrence with the provisional seizure of a claim and the seizure of a claim, whether the assignment order remains effective if it goes beyond the concurrent state due to the cancellation of provisional seizure of a claim (negative)

[1] In case of provisional seizure against a claim, if a creditor withdraws an application for provisional seizure against a claim, the provisional seizure order against a claim shall become invalid. However, if the original copy of the decision on provisional seizure against a claim was already served on the garnishee and the provisional seizure against a claim was executed, the provisional seizure execution against a third debtor shall become invalid in the future only when the notice of withdrawal was served on the

[2] An assignment order issued under the concurrent execution of provisional seizure of claim and seizure of claim is null and void. An assignment order invalidated once does not go beyond the concurrent state due to the concurrent seizure and seizure cancellation of provisional seizure of claim thereafter.

[1] Articles 557, 561, and 696 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 557, 561, 563(5), and 568-2 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant (Appointed Party) 1 and 83 others

Busan High Court Decision 99Na8933 delivered on March 10, 2000

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, when the creditor withdraws an application for provisional seizure against the claim in provisional seizure against the claim, the provisional seizure order against the claim becomes effective. However, if the original copy of the provisional seizure order against the claim had already been served on the third debtor and was executed on the provisional seizure against the claim, the execution of provisional seizure against the claim by the non-party W king Construction Co., Ltd. and the limited liability company against the third debtor in this case has become effective in the future. Thus, in this case, the effect of execution against provisional seizure against the claim by the non-party king Construction Co., Ltd. is extinguished on July 31, 1998 when the notice of withdrawal of the application for provisional seizure against the claim was served on the Republic of Korea as the third debtor. The plaintiff's original copy of the provisional seizure against the claim of this case was served on the third debtor to the Republic of Korea as the third debtor, and the execution of provisional seizure against the plaintiff's claim for provisional seizure against the claim of this case is unlawful in the misapprehension of legal principles and the records.

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

Justices Cho Cho-Un (Presiding Justice)