The validity of two assignment orders delivered to the third party debtor simultaneously;

If two seizures and assignment orders exceeding the face value of the seized claim amount reach the same time as the third obligor on the same day, it shall be deemed that there had been concurrent or joint seizure of nominative claim, different from the second assignment of nominative claim.

Article 563 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 450 of the Civil Act

On September 30, 1980, 78Da1292 (Supreme Court Decision 12535 delivered on September 30, 1980, Supreme Court Decision 283Do399 delivered on Supreme Court Decision, Decision No. 283Do399 delivered on Supreme Court Decision, Decision No. 469(2)39, 470(1)40, Court Gazette No. 645 delivered on July 13289)

Plaintiff

Bank of Korea

Seoul Civil History District Court (81 Gohap1460)

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 3,500,000 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from March 27, 1981 to the date of full payment.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs shall be borne by the defendant and provisional execution declaration

The same shall apply to the order.

In full view of the whole purport of the pleading in the statement No. 1 (mortgage and assignment order), No. 2 (Service Certification), and No. 2-1 (Service Report) without dispute over the establishment, the plaintiff is a compulsory execution against the non-party company for a claim of KRW 3,500,000, out of the amount based on an executory exemplification of a promissory note claim of KRW 4,500,000, which is owned by the non-party company against the defendant who is the third debtor, and the above court issued a claim attachment and assignment order to the Seoul Civil Court as of March 23, 191, and issued a claim attachment and assignment order as of March 23, 1981, and the above court issued a claim attachment and assignment order to the non-party company as of KRW 81,391,3392, and the original copy of the decision can be recognized as being served on the defendant on March 26, 200.

The non-party is also subject to compulsory execution based on the executory exemplification of a promissory note with respect to the non-party company, and the original copy of the decision was delivered to the defendant simultaneously with the original copy of the decision received by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff's assignment order of this case is invalid because there is competition between seizure and Eul. Thus, considering the whole purport of pleading in Eul evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-2 (Service Report), the non-party also filed an application for seizure and assignment order with the above court based on compulsory execution based on a notarial deed with executory power of a promissory note with respect to the non-party company's claim amounting to KRW 16,50,00,00 with respect to the non-party company, and the above court issued an order of seizure and assignment on March 19, 19, 3186, and 3187, and the plaintiff's assignment order of this case also becomes invalid. Thus, the plaintiff's assignment order of non-party No. 2 and the non-party's assignment order cannot be viewed's assignment order reached the defendant's claim No. 3.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this case based on the premise that the above assignment order is valid is groundless and dismissed, and since the original judgment with different conclusions is unfair, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the plaintiff's claim shall be revoked, and the costs of lawsuit shall be dismissed, and it shall be decided as per Disposition at the cost of the plaintiff who has lost all the first and

Judges Lee Young-tae (Presiding Judge)