In a case where, after an assignment order becomes effective for the non-existence of all or part of the claim, the validity of an assignment order for the non-existence of the non-existence part is confirmed.

When an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, the claims subject to attachment shall be naturally transferred to all the creditors within the scope of execution claims, and simultaneously become effective when the claims subject to attachment are transferred to all the creditors within the scope of execution claims, and this is also the same in cases where the claims subject to attachment are future claims containing elements of uncertainty of their existence and scope. However, if an assignment order on future claims becomes final and conclusive and it is found that there is no whole or part of the claims subject to attachment, the substantive effect of the assignment order on such part shall be retroactively null and void pursuant to the proviso of Article 564

Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Domin, Attorneys Park Jae-young and 1 other, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff (Appointed Party) 1 and one other

Defendant

Seoul District Court Decision 98Na5559 delivered on February 11, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff (appointed party).

When an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, a seized claim shall be naturally transferred to all creditors within the scope of execution claim, and at the same time the extinction of execution claim takes effect, and the same applies to cases where the seized claim is a future claim containing an element of uncertainty of its existence and scope (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 99Da21, Apr. 28, 1999; Supreme Court Order 99Da70716, Apr. 21, 2000). However, if an assignment order of future claim becomes final and conclusive and it is found that all or part of the seized claim does not exist, it is reasonable to deem that the substantive effect of an assignment order of that part becomes retroactively null and void pursuant to the proviso to Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act.

With reference to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the court below determined that the Defendant’s execution claim is KRW 37,481,730 based on an executory exemplification of a notarial deed against the Plaintiff (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”) and the Nonparty, and the Defendant’s execution claim is KRW 37,481,730 based on an executory exemplification of a notarial deed against the Nonparty, and the order of this case’s seizure and seizure was finalized with respect to the claim for payment of KRW 37,481,730 which is not finalized in the course of compulsory auction of real estate as stated in the judgment of the court below, but the order became final and conclusive, but the above execution claim of the Defendant became final and conclusive with respect to the claim for payment of KRW 11,587,293 which is not payable to the Plaintiff in the course of the above compulsory auction and became final and conclusive, and the remainder was not extinguished.

The judgment of the court below is just in accordance with the above legal principles, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the validity of an assignment order and the extinguishment of an execution claim, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal. Cases pointed out in the ground of appeal are different and thus are inappropriate

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)