[1] Whether an appeal against a seizure and assignment order based on an executory claim constitutes a ground for appeal against an executory claim, such as transfer or extinguishment of an executory claim (negative)

[2] Whether Article 568 of the Civil Procedure Act applies where a decision is made to suspend compulsory execution against a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution (negative)

[3] Whether the right to claim the recovery of guarantee deposits for the suspension of the compulsory execution of the judgment with a declaration of provisional execution is appropriate for a claim seizure and assignment order with the entire claim (affirmative)

[1] Although an immediate appeal may be raised against a judgment on the application for a seizure and assignment order of a claim, the substantive reasons such as the transfer of an executory claim to a third party (a creditor of an executory claim) or extinguishment by payment are not legitimate grounds for an appeal.

[2] In a case where an exemption from provisional execution is declared pursuant to Article 199(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, only a collection order shall be issued for a pecuniary claim attached pursuant to Article 568 of the Civil Procedure Act, but it does not constitute a case where a decision to suspend the compulsory execution against the judgment of the provisional execution sentence was made, not for a declaration of exemption from provisional execution.

[3] Since the right to claim the recovery of the deposit money for the suspension of compulsory execution against the judgment of the provisional execution sentence is recognized to be inadequate, the creditor who received the seizure order and the assignment order against the relevant claim may obtain the satisfaction of the execution claim from the relevant guarantee deposit, unless there are other special circumstances.

[1] Articles 561(4) and 563(6) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 199(2), 474, and 568 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 561(1) and 563(1) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 82Ma854 dated January 26, 1983 (Gong1983, 573), Supreme Court Order 92Ma213 dated April 15, 1992 (Gong1992, 1816), Supreme Court Order 94Ma1681, 1682 dated November 10, 1994 (Gong195Sang, 36)

Appellant (Attorney Kim Young-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Order 95Ra150, 151 dated April 27, 1995

The reappeal is dismissed.

The supplemental appellate brief and the supplementary appellate brief filed after the expiration of the period are also examined.

1. On the first ground for appeal

An immediate appeal may be raised against a judgment on the application for a seizure and assignment order (Articles 561(4) and 563(6) of the Civil Procedure Act). However, the substantive reasons such as the transfer of an execution claim to a third party (a creditor of an execution claim) or extinguishment by repayment, etc. pursuant to a seizure and assignment order against it, do not constitute a legitimate reason for appeal (see Supreme Court Order 94Ma1681, 1682, Nov. 10, 1994).

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the ground that the execution bond of this case was extinguished by the re-appellant's repayment to the non-applicant 1 and the non-applicant 2 as to the execution bond of this case shall not be a legitimate ground for appeal against the seizure and assignment order of this case is just, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles as to the ground for appeal against the seizure and assignment order of this case as pointed out in the ground for reappeal. The Supreme Court Order 8Da25038 dated November 24, 1989 pointing out by the re-appellant concerning the execution bond of this case is related to the issue of provisional seizure order against the execution bond of this case, and therefore it is inappropriate to invoke this issue as it is different from the case of this case. The ground for reappeal

2. On the second ground for appeal

In a case where an exemption from provisional execution is declared pursuant to Article 199(2) of the Civil Procedure Act, only a collection order shall be issued against the seized monetary claims as asserted by the re-appellant (Article 568 of the Civil Procedure Act). However, as to the execution claim of this case, there was a decision to suspend compulsory execution against the judgment on the declaration of provisional execution, not with a declaration of exemption from provisional execution. Thus, it does not constitute a case where only a collection order should be issued. The grounds for re-appeal as to this point arise from misunderstanding the purport of Article 568 of the Civil Procedure Act, and thus, cannot be accepted.

3. On the third ground for appeal

Inasmuch as a claim for the suspension of compulsory execution against a judgment with a declaration of provisional execution is recognized to be disqualified, an obligee who has received an order of seizure and the entire order for the said claim may obtain the satisfaction of the execution claim from the said security deposit, barring any other special circumstances. The grounds for re-appeal pertaining to this point arose from the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the claim for the recovery of the above security deposit, and the Supreme Court Order 79Ma74 dated November 23, 1979, pointing out in the grounds for re-appeal, is different from this case, and thus, is not a proper precedent. The grounds for re-appeal pointing this out cannot be accepted.

4. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Park Jong-chul (Presiding Justice)