(a) Scope of validity of a seizure of monetary claims and that of an assignment order for the combined claim;

(b) Provisions of Article 568-2 of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the scope of validity of attachment of claims pursuant to the disposition on default pursuant to the provisions of Article 43 of the National Tax Collection Act and competition of attachment.

(a) An assignment order for a claim of which attachment is concurrent shall generally be effective if the attachment is not specifically limited to the amount of the claim of which attachment is to be effected in full, and the assignment order for the claim of which attachment is concurrent shall be invalid;

B. In light of the purport of Article 43 of the National Tax Collection Act concerning the attachment of claims based on the disposition on default, if a new attachment is issued in excess of the remainder after a part of claims is already seized, the effect of each attachment shall be different from that of a general claim that extends to the whole amount of the claims, and where a seizure based on the disposition on default is conducted based on the disposition on default, the effect of each attachment shall only be limited to the specific part of the claims, if a part of the claims subject to attachment is specified and the sum of the claims subject to attachment exceeds the total amount of the claims subject to attachment, and thus, the effect of the attachment shall not be extended to the whole amount of the claims subject to attachment.

A. Articles 561 and 563 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 43 of the National Tax Collection Act; Article 568-2 of the Civil Procedure Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 72Ma1548 delivered on January 24, 1973 (No. 21(1))

Plaintiff

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 3 others (Law Firm Jungyang, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Busan High Court Decision 90Na9636 delivered on March 20, 1991

Of the judgment below, the part concerning gold 7,701,160 won and damages for delay thereof shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to the Busan High Court.

The plaintiff's remaining appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal dismissed shall be assessed against the plaintiff.

As to the Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, on November 25, 1988, the head of the Dongsan Tax Office attached the amount equivalent to delinquent amount of 5,250,740 won from the above non-party's claim for the return of 14,50,000 won lease deposit against the non-party's defendant based on the value-added tax in arrears and the additional dues claim against the above non-party. On December 21, 198, Busan District Medical Insurance Association attached the amount equivalent to delinquent 1,548,100 won from the above non-party's claim for the return of 1,548,100 won from the above non-party's medical insurance premium claim for the above non-party. On January 4, 1989, the court below determined that the above plaintiff's claim for the seizure was null and void based on the authentic copy of the notarial deed with 14,500,000 won loan credit against the above non-party, and the above order for seizure was issued in excess of the above 19.

In general, if the seizure of monetary claims is not limited to the amount of the claims subject to seizure, the seizure shall be effective to the whole amount of the claims, and the assignment order for the concurrent claims subject to seizure shall not be effective.

However, Article 43 of the National Tax Collection Act provides that the scope of seizure of claims under a disposition on default shall be limited to national taxes, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears. However, if the claims to be seized exceed the national tax, additional dues and disposition fees for arrears, if deemed necessary, the whole amount of such claims may be seized, and does not provide any particular provision concerning the expansion of the effectiveness of seizure. In other words, if a seizure order is issued again after a part of the claims is partially seized in excess of the remainder, the effect of each seizure shall be deemed to be the whole amount of such claims (Article 568-2(1) of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 127 of the former Rules of the Civil Procedure). Accordingly, in relation to a seizure based on a priority claim than a general claim, the effect of seizure shall only be limited to the specific claim if it is specified, and the effect of seizure shall not be extended to the whole amount of the seized claims even if the amount of the claims to be seized exceeds the total amount of the claims to be seized.

Article 35 (1) of the Framework Act on National Taxes provides that the National Tax priority principle shall take precedence over other public charges and other claims except special cases, and Article 56 of the Medical Insurance Act provides that the order of collection of medical insurance premiums shall be next to national and local taxes, and Article 55 (3) of the same Act provides that insurance premiums claims shall take precedence over general claims.

As can be seen, in cases where an attachment was made pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act on the basis of a priority claim and limited to a part of a monetary claim, which is a claim subject to attachment, pursuant to the provisions of the National Tax Collection Act, the attachment shall be effective only to the specified part. The remainder shall not be effective, and even if a general creditor seized this part, the assignment order on this part shall not be deemed to be effective. Accordingly, in this case, the assignment order on this part shall not be effective. Accordingly, in this case, the attachment made by the head of the Dongsan District Tax Office pursuant to Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act on the non-party's claim for the return of the lease deposit against the defendant, who is the attached claim, shall be effective only for the seized claim of KRW 5,250,740 equivalent to the value-added tax and the additional tax, and the attachment made by the Busan District Health Insurance Association of Busan District District 3 shall be effective only for the above amount of KRW 1,548,100,740 equivalent to the specific medical insurance premium in arrears.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assignment order against the total amount of the lease deposit shall not be effective against the part of 6,798,840 won, the effect of which is the result of the disposition on default. However, the remainder of 7,701,160 won shall be valid. The judgment of the court below that rejected all of the plaintiff's claims for the above reasons shall be deemed to have committed an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of the seizure and assignment order, and therefore, it is reasonable to this extent.

Therefore, among the judgment below, the part of the court below's 7,701,160 won and damages for delay thereof are reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as without merit. The costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are assessed against the losing party and the costs of appeal to the Supreme Court are

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho