In case where a seizure and assignment order has been lawfully made, whether the court needs to examine and determine the possibility of extinction or extinguishment of an execution claim in the case of a claim for full payment

As long as an attachment and assignment order of a claim based on the name of debt with executory power has been duly made, the seized claim is naturally transferred to the executory creditor within the scope of the executory claim, and even if the executory claim has already been extinguished or is likely to be extinguished, the validity of the attachment and assignment order of the above claim shall not be affected. Therefore, in a case of a claim for the total amount of money, deliberation and judgment is unnecessary as to the possibility of extinction

[Judgment of the court below]

Korean Commercial Bank, Inc.

Attorney Park Jae-il, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul High Court Decision 75Na1788 delivered on February 12, 1976

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal between the plaintiff and the defendant are assessed against the defendant. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal is examined.

As long as the attachment and assignment order of claims has been duly made under the title of debt with executory power, the claims subject to seizure are naturally transferred to executory creditors within the scope of executory claims, and even if the execution claims have already been extinguished or are likely to be extinguished, the validity of the attachment and assignment order of the above claims shall not be affected. Thus, as long as the attachment and assignment order of claims was legally executed once the attachment and assignment order of claims became effective, it is unnecessary to examine and determine the possibility of extinction or extinction of the execution claims unless there are circumstances of extreme group in the case of the claim for full payment. Accordingly, the court below held that the non-party's title of debt, which is the basis of the attachment and assignment order of this case under these circumstances, shall be the non-party's order for provisional execution of the case claiming unjust enrichment 515 against the defendant by Seoul Special Metropolitan City, or the above judgment of the defendant shall be revoked by the original judgment with the appeal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and therefore, it is obvious that the plaintiff's claim in this case is improper to determine the validity of the provisional execution judgment and assignment order of the non-party's claim.

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 on the bench.

Justices Lee Young-young (Presiding Justice)