The validity of an assignment order received on the claim for time deposit repayment before the expiration of the term;

Where the claims for the repayment of time deposit are all made before the expiration of the term of time deposit, the bank which is the garnishee may oppose all the creditors by reason of offset, etc. against the debtor until the expiration of the term.

Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Choi Jin-kin

Han Han Bank Co., Ltd.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 4,00,000 won with 25% interest per annum from July 2, 1983 to the full payment day.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and a judgment of provisional execution

If the plaintiff loaned KRW 4,00,000 to the non-party on December 4, 1981, the plaintiff loaned KRW 4,00,000 to the non-party on July 1, 1983, when it was based on the executory exemplification of the notarial deed No. 1983, 628, 1983, No. 5,000 against the non-party on July 1, 1983, it can be acknowledged that the above non-party was ordered to seize and complete the claims against the defendant as stipulated in No. 835, 6936, and No. 6936, and the above non-party was ordered to attach and complete the claims against the non-party on April 2, 1983. There is no counter-proof evidence, and there is no dispute between the defendant bank and the non-party's deposit with the maturity of KRW 5,000 on April 8, 1983.

On the basis of the above assignment order, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 4,00,000 to the defendant of the non-party's fixed deposit amount of KRW 4,00,00 among the fixed deposit amount of the non-party's non-party's above assignment order, before the above assignment order is issued to the defendant who is the garnishee, the above non-party's fixed deposit claim against the non-party's above defendant

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Agreement), Gap evidence Nos. 2 (Buyer), Gap evidence Nos. 4 (Guarantee of Payment), Gap evidence No. 5-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 5-2 (the surface of guarantee of payment and back) which can be recognized by the testimony of the non-party witness, and if the testimony of the above witness and the fact inquiry into the Busan Common Fishing Market are gathered, the non-party is a person working for the above Common Fishing Market. Thus, if the non-party's share purchase of the catch entrusted by the above Common Fishing Market and the above amount of the above amount of the above money to be paid to the non-party 1 within the limit of 00 days before the auction date, the non-party's claim for the above amount of the money to be paid to the non-party 3 as collateral, and the above non-party's claim for the above amount of money to be paid to the non-party 40 days before the above order was issued to secure the payment of the money to the non-party 1,000 won.

In addition, as seen earlier, even if the Defendant paid the fish price by subrogation after the Defendant was served with the order of seizure and assignment on July 2, 1983, and the claim for indemnity against the non-party’s claim for a fixed deposit, as seen earlier, the Defendant guaranteed the non-party’s obligation to pay the fish price to the above non-party’s above fixed deposit market by using the above non-party’s fixed deposit as security. As such, if the Defendant pays the above fixed deposit amount to the non-party’s guarantor until April 7, 1984 when the term of the fixed deposit expires, it can be offset against the non-party’s claim for indemnity against the non-party’s above fixed deposit amount. Accordingly, the Plaintiff can only seek the payment against the defendant only for the remaining fixed deposit which remains until the expiration of the term deposit period. Accordingly, even if the Defendant’s claim for indemnity was offset against the above fixed deposit amount arising before the expiration of the term, the assignment order cannot be effective.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the payment of the total amount on the premise that the assignment order is valid is dismissed as without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act to the bearing of litigation costs.

Judges' inducement (Presiding Judge) Egradical leap