The validity of two orders of seizure and assignment where the other party receives an order of seizure and assignment after the applicant received an order of seizure and assignment of the claim for deposit money;

If the attachment and assignment order of a claim has been duly made, even if there is a creditor who received the attachment and assignment order thereafter, the effect of the attachment and assignment order of the claim does not affect and the subsequent attachment and assignment order is null and void.

Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Order 84Ma13 dated June 26, 1984 (Article 564(49)910 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 564(49)No 322Gong736No 1420)

Pool-ju, an appellant

Other party Lee Dong-young et al.

Seoul Central District Court (87Ka4842) in the first instance trial

1. Cancellation of the original decision;

2. The security of KRW 10,000,000 deposited with the deposit official of the same court on August 9, 1985 by Hansung-hee as to the case of the application for the suspension of the real estate auction procedure and the provisional disposition of the real estate auction procedure of Seoul Civil District Court 85Ka30120 shall be revoked.

Purport of request and appeal

The same shall apply to the order.

On the other hand, the Respondent of the above court No. 85 and the above Respondent No. 8432 of March 9, 1981 and the above Respondent of the above court No. 981 of this case against the above Respondent of the court No. 801 of this case against the above Respondent of the court No. 1 of this case's order for cancellation of the registration of mortgage transfer 85 of the same court No. 97 of this case's Respondent No. 1 of this case's 7 of this case's Respondent No. 981 of this case's Respondent of this case's request for cancellation of the above Respondent No. 985 of this case's Respondent No. 1 of this case's Respondent of the above Respondent No. 1 of this court's 7 of this case's order for cancellation of the registration of mortgage transfer 98 of the same court's Respondent of this case's Respondent No. 1 of this court's 1985 of this case's request for cancellation of the above 980.

Since the applicant succeeded to the above status of the claimant under the above order of seizure and assignment, the respondent is urged to exercise his right against the claimant who is the secured right holder, and the respondent does not exercise his right. Thus, according to the records of this case, Seoul Civil District Court notified the respondent of the exercise of right on February 9, 1987, and the respondent won the above respondent's claim for cancellation of establishment registration of mortgage of Seoul Civil District Court 85 Ma1392, which is the principal case of the above provisional disposition, and the appeal of the Supreme Court becomes final and conclusive as the respondent's winning of the above respondent's claim for cancellation of attachment registration of the above provisional disposition and the above provisional disposition order of 5,09,000 won was issued to the Seoul Civil District Court and the above provisional disposition order of 100 won was issued and the above provisional disposition order of 2,765,891 won was issued and the above provisional disposition order of 201,00 won cannot be seen as an execution claim of the above provisional disposition and the above provisional disposition order of 30181.

If so, the applicant's application of this case shall be accepted with the reason, and since the original decision is unfair with different conclusions, it shall be revoked and the application of the applicant shall be accepted, and it shall be decided as per the disposition.

Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge)