Whether an obligor may appeal against an assignment order on the ground that there is no claim subject to an attachment and assignment order against a garnishee (negative)

The attachment and assignment order of a claim is a compulsory execution against a creditor holding the title of a monetary claim against a monetary claim that a debtor in his/her title of debt has against a third party debtor. In determining the attachment and assignment order, the court examines the requirements such as service of the title of debt, existence of the preceding seizure order, and existence of the preceding seizure order. In principle, it is not necessary to judge whether a debtor has a claim against a third party debtor. If no such claim exists against a third party debtor, the repayment order is valid even if the assignment order is finalized, and even if the debtor does not have such claim against the third party debtor, unless there are any special circumstances, it is no disadvantage for the third party debtor to do so. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a ground for objection on this ground.

Articles 223, 229, 230, and 231 of the Civil Execution Act

Supreme Court Order 92Ma213 dated April 15, 1992 (Gong1992, 1816) Decision 94Ma1681 and 1682 dated November 10, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 36) Supreme Court Order 9Ma2198 and 2199 Decided August 13, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2155)

Re-appellant

Chuncheon District Court Order 2003Ra35 dated October 2, 2003

The order of the court below is reversed. The debtor's appeal is dismissed.

1. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below, based on the records, seems to have clearly erroneous errors in the court below's reasoning that the creditor (re-appellant) applied for the attachment and assignment order of the bail deposit paid to the Republic of Korea on August 28, 2003 pursuant to the court's ruling of permission on bail (hereinafter "the ruling of permission on bail") and applied for the attachment and assignment order of the bond of this case to the third debtor on August 1, 2003, which was issued by the court below on August 28, 2003, 300,000 won for the right to claim the release of this case's security deposit of this case, which was issued by the non-party's spouse's agent and the non-party's agent's right to claim the release of this case, which was issued by the court below on August 1, 203, 300,000 won for the non-party's bond of this case to be issued by the non-party's agent's 200.

2. However, the attachment and assignment order of a claim is a compulsory execution against a creditor who has the title of debt of a monetary claim and against a monetary claim held by a debtor against a third debtor under his title of debt. In determining the attachment and assignment order, the court must examine the requirements such as the delivery of the title of debt, the existence of the preceding seizure order, the existence of the preceding seizure order, and the existence of the preceding seizure order. In practice, it is not necessary to judge whether the debtor has a claim against the third debtor. If there is no such claim against the third debtor, the performance is not effective even if the assignment order is finalized, and even if the debtor does not have such claim against the third debtor, it is not a disadvantage for this reason, barring any special circumstances, and therefore, it cannot be viewed as a ground for objection (see Supreme Court Order 92Ma213, Apr. 15, 1992).

Nevertheless, the court below revoked the attachment and assignment order of this case by the court of the first instance on the ground that the debtor did not have a claim against the garnishee subject to the attachment and assignment order of this case, and dismissed the creditor's application. In so determining, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the grounds for appeal against the attachment and assignment order of claims, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, and therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be reversed.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient for this court to directly render a judgment. Thus, the debtor's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jae- Jae (Presiding Justice)