logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014. 2. 19.자 2013마2316 결정
[채권압류및전부명령][공2014상,585]
Main Issues

Whether a shareholder of a shareholder representative lawsuit can become an execution creditor (affirmative)

Summary of Decision

Since the executive force of a final and conclusive judgment rendered by a person who became a plaintiff for another person, such as a shareholder of a shareholder representative lawsuit, is limited to both the plaintiff who became a party to the final and conclusive judgment and all other persons who are parties to the final and conclusive judgment, the shareholder of

[Reference Provisions]

Article 403 of the Commercial Act, Article 25 of the Civil Execution Act

Creditors, Other Parties

Creditors

The debtor and re-appellant

The debtor

The judgment below

Daejeon District Court Order 2013Ra667 dated October 25, 2013

Text

The reappeal is dismissed.

Reasons

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

Since the executive force of a final and conclusive judgment rendered by a person who became a plaintiff for another person, such as a shareholder of a shareholder representative lawsuit, is limited to both the plaintiff and the other person who became a party to the final and conclusive judgment, the shareholder of a shareholder representative lawsuit may become an executive creditor.

The court below acknowledged the fact that the creditor, who is the shareholder of Seocho Sea Development Corporation, filed a lawsuit claiming damages against the debtor who is the representative director of the above company through a shareholder representative lawsuit against the above company, and the debtor was declared to pay the damages to the above company, and determined that the creditor, as the plaintiff of the above final judgment, is qualified as the execution creditor who is entitled to apply for the seizure and assignment order of the claim of this case against

In light of the above legal principles, the judgment of the court below is just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the qualification of execution creditor.

Therefore, the re-appeal by the obligor is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Poe-young (Presiding Justice)

arrow