Whether other creditors of the debtor of provisional seizure may participate in the distribution in the compulsory auction procedure commenced by the creditor of provisional seizure after the third party acquired ownership of the relevant mid-term period after the registration of provisional seizure for mid-term period (negative)

In a case where the registration of provisional seizure is first made for the mid-term period registered under the Mid-Term Management Act, and the third party's ownership transfer registration is made in the future, the acquisition of ownership by the third party shall only be null and void in relation to the creditor of provisional seizure to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of preservation for execution because of the effect of prohibition of disposal by provisional seizure, and it shall be valid in relation to other creditors, etc. of the debtor of provisional seizure. In such a case, other creditors against the debtor of provisional seizure shall not participate in the distribution of the proceeds of the mid-term auction in the procedure of provisional seizure commenced after the acquisition of ownership by the creditor of provisional seizure

Articles 605(1), 688-2, and 696 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 173, 189, 199, and 200 of the Rules on Civil Procedure

[Plaintiff-Appellee] 94Ma417 decided Nov. 29, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 104)

Plaintiff 1 and one other

Defendant 1 and one other

Gwangju High Court Decision 97Na4608 delivered on November 27, 1997

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below rejected the plaintiffs' request of the court of execution based on the original copy of the notarial deed on April 25, 1996 and completed the provisional attachment registration on August 18, 195, and completed the transfer of ownership on August 29, 195 after purchasing heavy concrete from the above corporation, and completed the transfer of ownership on August 29, 195. After which the plaintiffs filed an application for compulsory auction on April 196 upon the final judgment of the claim of each promissory note payment against the above corporation, and the defendants filed a demand of distribution with the court of execution on April 25, 1996 with the court of execution based on each of the above provisional attachment against the above corporation, the court of execution on January 13, 1997 and the defendants' each of the above claims against the plaintiffs and the defendants on each of the above dividends claim against the new owners of the above corporation. The court of execution did not err in the misapprehension of the distribution schedule.

However, the provisional attachment registration for the mid-term period registered under the mid-term Management Act shall be first made, and in case where the transfer of ownership is registered for the third party's future, the acquisition of ownership by the third party shall only be null and void in relation to the creditor of provisional attachment to the extent necessary to achieve the purpose of preserving the execution because of the effect of prohibition of disposal by provisional attachment, and shall be valid in relation to other creditors, etc. of the debtor of provisional attachment. In such a case, other creditors against the debtor of provisional attachment shall not participate in the distribution of the successful bid price for the mid-term period in the procedure of compulsory auction commenced after the acquisition of ownership by the creditor of provisional attachment who

Therefore, according to the above facts acknowledged by the court below, inasmuch as the new K-U.S. Co., Ltd. acquired the ownership of this mid-term after the plaintiffs registered provisional seizure against the mid-term Co., Ltd., the provisional seizure obligee thereafter, even if the Defendants were to demand distribution as a general creditor of UN-U.S. concrete Co., Ltd., a debtor of provisional seizure during the above compulsory auction procedure commenced at the request of the plaintiffs, the Defendants shall

Nevertheless, the judgment of the court below which held that the defendants can participate in the dividend of the above mid-term auction price is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of provisional seizure, etc. and it is clear that such illegality has affected the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Shin Sung-sung (Presiding Justice)