[1] In a case where a creditor who received a seizure and collection order collects a seized claim from a garnishee and makes a report on collection under Article 236(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the procedure of termination of execution of the claim

[2] In case where a provisional seizure is executed as a principal seizure and a compulsory execution is conducted, whether there is a benefit for the debtor to seek an objection against the provisional seizure or a revocation request (negative)

[1] Where a creditor subject to a collection order has collected a claim subject to seizure and collection from a garnishee and reported a collection under Article 236(1) of the Civil Execution Act, if there exists no other seizure, provisional seizure, or demand for distribution until that time, the claim subject to seizure shall be extinguished within the scope of such collection. Where the total amount of the execution claim is repaid after investigating the appropriation relationship, etc. of the collection amount, the execution court shall deliver an executory exemplification to the debtor, and where a part of the execution claim has been repaid, the execution of the claim shall be terminated by taking measures, such as returning it to the creditor,

[2] In case where a provisional seizure is executed upon the execution of a provisional seizure due to the execution of a provisional seizure, the execution of a provisional seizure has the same effect as that of the original execution since it is included in the main execution. Thus, the debtor who is already executed has no practical benefit to seek an objection against the provisional seizure, a request for revocation, or a revocation of the execution of a provisional seizure itself, and in particular, there is no benefit to seek revocation of the decision of the provisional seizure itself or revocation of the execution of a provisional seizure

[1] Articles 229 and 236 (1) of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Articles 223 and 288 of the Civil Execution Act

[2] Supreme Court Decision 75Da2065 delivered on January 27, 1976 (Gong1976, 8952) Supreme Court Decision 97Da34594 delivered on June 9, 200 (Gong2000Ha, 1587) Supreme Court Decision 2001Ma6620 Delivered on March 15, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 951)

Applicant

Respondent

Seoul Western District Court Decision 2004Na2421 delivered on September 16, 2004

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul Western District Court Panel Division.

1. Where the creditor subjected to a collection order has collected the claims subject to seizure and collection from the garnishee and reported on the collection under Article 236 (1) of the Civil Execution Act until such time, and where no other seizure, provisional seizure or demand for distribution exists, the claims subject to seizure shall be extinguished within the scope of such collection, and where the full amount of the execution claims has been repaid after investigating the appropriation relationship, etc. of the collection amount, the execution court shall deliver to the debtor with executory exemplification, and where a part of the claims has been repaid, the execution of the claims shall be terminated by taking measures, such as return to the creditor, etc

On the other hand, in the event that a provisional seizure has been carried out due to the execution of a provisional seizure, the execution of a provisional seizure has the same effect as that of the original execution since it is included in the execution of the principal execution. Thus, as long as this execution is carried out, the debtor has no practical benefit to seek an objection against the provisional seizure, a request for revocation, or a revocation of the execution of the provisional seizure itself, and in particular, in the event that the provisional seizure has been completed, there is no benefit to seek revocation

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below accepted the above 20th judgment against the non-applicants who are the above 20th judgment of the Seoul District Court 95 Gohap 1547. The above 2nd judgment of the court was affirmed as 30th judgment of the above 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the above 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the above 3th judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 2nd judgment of the above 3th judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 20th judgment of the 2nd judgment of the above 20th judgment of the 2nd judgment of the 20th judgment of the above 20th judgment of the above 2nd judgment of the 206th judgment.

However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

According to the records, the respondent applied for a seizure and collection order to transfer provisional seizure to provisional seizure as Seoul Western District Court 2004TTT1586, and the above court accepted the above application by the respondent on May 12, 2004 and issued a seizure and collection order, and the respondent reported the collection of the above claim on May 24, 2004 after the collection of the above claim was conducted by the respondent, and the execution court stated the purport in the executory exemplification and stated it in the executory exemplification in the case of partial repayment.

In light of the above, since the execution of the claim to recover deposited money of KRW 3 million has already been completed. Accordingly, even though the applicant had no interest in seeking the revocation of the provisional attachment order, the court below accepted the application of this case. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the execution of claims and provisional attachment, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Thus, the ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)