(a) The method to exercise the right to preferential reimbursement by exercising the subrogation right; (b) whether the mortgagee has the right to preferential reimbursement by the completion date to demand a distribution of the right to exercise the subrogation right under paragraph (a);

A. The proviso of Article 370 and Article 342 of the Civil Act provides that a mortgagee shall seize money or other things to be paid or delivered by the mortgagee in order to exercise the subrogation right is to maintain the specific nature of the claim which is the object of subrogation and preserve its effect, and at the same time not to inflict losses on a third party. Thus, in cases where a general creditor does not simply seize or seize money or other things, which are the modified object of the mortgaged subject matter, more than the secured creditor who seeks to exercise the subrogation right, the mortgagee may exercise the subrogation right for the target claim, and then receive preferential repayment than the general creditor. The execution procedure provides that the mortgagee shall be treated in accordance with the compulsory execution procedure for the claim and other property rights under Article 733 of the Civil Procedure Act. Accordingly, the mortgagee’s application for seizure and assignment order should be made, but it should be the case where the execution court commences by submitting documents proving the existence of the secured right as the requirement.

B. In light of the purport of each provision of Articles 733 and 580 of the Civil Procedure Act, the exercise of the subrogation right for the method such as ‘A' should be made by the deadline for the completion of the demand for distribution as stipulated in Article 580 of the Civil Procedure Act at the latest, but it is reasonable to view that there is no right thereafter.

(a)Article 370 and Article 342 of the Civil Code, Article 733(b) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 580 of the Civil Code;

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu24816 delivered on December 26, 1990 (Gong1991, 628) (Gong1992, 2512)

Hanil Bank, Inc., Counsel for the defendant-appellant-appellee and six others

Attorney Lee Jae-ho, Counsel for the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 93Na51095 delivered on April 22, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The proviso of Article 370 and Article 342 of the Civil Act provides that a mortgagee shall attach money or other things to be paid or delivered by the mortgagee in order to exercise the subrogation right. It is intended to maintain the specificity of the claim which is the object of subrogation and preserve its validity, and at the same time not to inflict any damage on a third party. Thus, in cases where the general creditor simply does not execute seizure or provisional seizure before the creditor who seeks to exercise the subrogation right, the mortgagee may exercise the subrogation right for the secured claim, and thereafter, the execution procedure shall be treated in accordance with the compulsory execution procedure against the claim and other property rights, and therefore, the mortgagee shall apply for the attachment and assignment order of the claim, or the execution procedure shall be limited to the execution procedure, so it shall be the case where the execution court submits documents proving the existence of the secured right as the requirement, and shall not be deemed to have the right to have been secured until the expiration date of each claim under Article 90483 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, according to the facts duly established by the court below, on November 16, 1989, the plaintiff was aware of the above amount of KRW 25,000,000,000 for the security of the loan claim against the non-party 2, the non-party 3,000 won for the above amount of KRW 50,000,000,000 for the non-party 1,000 won for the above amount of KRW 50,00,000 for the provisional seizure against the non-party 3,000,000 won for the above amount of KRW 2,50,000,000 for the provisional seizure against the non-party 2,00,000 won for the above amount of KRW 1,50,00,000 for the above amount of 5,000,000 won for the above amount of 1,05,000 won for the above provisional seizure against the defendant.

In light of the above circumstances, even though the plaintiff could substitute for the non-party company's right to demand the payment of deposit money due to the expropriation of the land of this case, which is the object of mortgage, pursuant to Articles 370 and 342 of the Civil Act and Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act, the plaintiff himself/herself takes a provisional attachment as to the above right to demand the payment of deposit money by compulsory execution, not by exercising the above subrogation right, and as to other provisional attachment creditors, etc., he/she deposits the amount of debt pursuant to Article 581 (2) of the Civil Procedure Act, and as long as the third party debtor has reported the reason to the court of execution, the plaintiff can obtain the right to demand the payment by submitting documents proving the existence of mortgage to the court of execution until November 17, 192 when the Republic of Korea reported the reason to the court of execution and filing an application for the demand for distribution based on mortgage or for the exercise of the right to demand payment equivalent thereto. Thus, it cannot be accepted from the point of view of the court below's logic that the plaintiff's right to demand the payment cannot be accepted.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)