Whether the ground upon which the debtor received the decision to suspend compulsory execution becomes the ground for immediate appeal against the seizure and collection order.

In the case of a collection order, unlike the case of an assignment order, where it takes effect by delivering it to the garnishee, and where an immediate appeal is filed on the grounds that the documents, such as the original copy of the stay of execution or the certificate of repayment, etc., have been submitted after a collection order was issued, the judgment on the appeal shall be suspended. Therefore, the reason why the debtor files a lawsuit claiming objection against the creditor, and received the decision to suspend compulsory execution, cannot be asserted as a ground for immediate appeal against

Articles 563(4) and 563(8) of the Civil Procedure Act

Decree of the Republic of Korea

Seoul District Court Decision 201Na4906, 4907 decided October 22, 1993

The appeal is dismissed.

According to the records, the court below issued a seizure and collection order as to the wage and retirement allowance claim against a stock company other than the appellant's appeal on October 21, 1993 based on the authentic copy of an executory deed No. 2011, 1992, which was executed by a notary public as to the amount of 22,000,000 won of a promissory note against the appellant. The court below issued a seizure and collection order as to the above claim by the same court as the same court No. 93ta4906, 4907.

On the other hand, the appellant filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the claim under Seoul District Court Branch 93Kahap16985 on November 25, 1993 with the opposing party of the above highest rule, and the same court decided on December 93Kaga1380 on December 2, 1993 that compulsory execution based on the original copy of the above notarial deed should be suspended until the pronouncement of the judgment in the case of the above claim, and therefore the above seizure and collection order should be revoked.

In determining a seizure and collection order, if the court examines and determines procedural and formal requirements such as existence of jurisdiction, identification of request, existence and delivery of a title of debt, eligibility of a seizure claim, etc., an immediate appeal against the seizure and collection order can be made only on the ground of defects in the above procedural and formal requirements. Unlike the case of an assignment order, in the case of a collection order, an immediate appeal against the seizure and collection order may be made only on the ground of defects in the above procedural and formal requirements. Unlike the case of an assignment order, it becomes effective upon delivery to a third party obligor (Articles 563(4) and 561(3) of the Civil Procedure Act), and there is no provision that a trial on appeal shall be suspended if an immediate appeal is filed on the ground that the documents under Article 510 subparag. 2 and 4 of the Civil Procedure Act were submitted after the issuance of the collection order (see Article 563(8) of the Civil Procedure Act). The foregoing ground asserted by the appellant cannot be asserted as a ground for immediate appeal against the above seizure and collection order, and the order of this case is dismissed.

Judges Min Il-young (Presiding Judge)