In an assignment order, where the garnishee is able to oppose against the entire creditor by offsetting him/her;

In regard to a seizure and assignment order, if a garnishee has a counterclaim that had been in the offset against the debtor before the order is served, he/she may oppose the entire creditor as an offset after the order has been served.

Articles 493 and 498 of the Civil Act, Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Attorney Yang Sang-ok, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant

Attorney Kim Jong-young, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na1480 delivered on February 21, 1973

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal are examined (the supplementary appellate brief is after the expiration of the submission period, to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate brief).

However, according to the statement in the brief of the defendant's legal representative stated at the time of the third pleading of the court below, it is clear that the defendant declared a set-off of the whole claim against the non-party company's claim for damages against the non-party company's limited partnership company, which is the debtor of the whole claim in this case, at the time of the third pleading of the court below, the court below's decision that the defendant declared a set-off against the above non-party company's claim in whole in this case. Thus, since the non-party company's non-party company's refusal to perform the repair of the defendant's claim at the time of the first pleading of the court below's decision was converted into the obligation to compensate for damages, the above non-party company's damage claim due to the due date and the whole non-party company's claim in this case should be deemed to have been extinguished within the equivalent amount in this case's previous set-off before May 8, 1970. Therefore, it is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to a set-off in the judgment of an unlawful judgment.

The Supreme Court Decision 72Da2117 delivered on December 26, 1972 that, after an assignment order has been issued to the third obligor with respect to the attachment and assignment order, even if the third obligor had an opposing claim in the offset against the obligor before the obligor was served with the order, the third obligor cannot offset the obligor's claim in the offset against the obligor's claim. Thus, the above decision is inconsistent with the above decision, and thus, is discarded.

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

Justices Kim Jong-young (Presiding Justice)