[1] In a case where the face value of a seized bond exceeds the creditor's execution bond and execution cost in the seizure of a monetary claim, whether another bond may be seized concurrently (negative in principle)

[2] In a case where Gap filed an application for a provisional seizure and collection order against Eul et al., as the right to claim the value of the claim based on the cancellation of fraudulent act against Eul et al., and Gap filed an application for a provisional seizure and collection order against other third debtor Byung as to deposit claims against Eul et al., the case holding that the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the limit of the seizure and collection order and the prohibition of excessive seizure, since the above provisional seizure had already been issued at the time of the above seizure and collection order and the seized claim exceeded the creditor's execution and execution expenses as the dividend receipt claim against Byung et al., and the above seized claim exceeded the creditor's execution and execution expenses as the dividend receipt claim against the debtor Byung et al., and the court below rejected the application for the seizure and collection order against the creditor et al., separately after the above seizure and collection order was issued

[1] Article 188(2) of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 188(2) of the Civil Execution Act

Co., Ltd. 200

The debtor

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation

District Court Order 2010Ra68 dated November 3, 2010

The order of the court below is reversed. The decision of the court of first instance is revoked, and the request for the seizure and collection order of this case is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. Article 188(2) of the Civil Execution Act provides that "a seizure shall be made within the extent necessary to reimburse the amount of claims stated in the executory exemplification and to reimburse expenses for execution". In the seizure of monetary claims, where the face value of the seized claim exceeds the amount of the obligee's execution claim and expenses for execution, it is reasonable to deem that the seizure of the seized claim is not permitted to duplicate seizure of other claims unless there are special circumstances to deem that the actual value of the obligor's execution claim and expenses for execution fall short of the obligee'

2. According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, the court below rendered a favorable judgment against the plaintiff (creditor) on 1, 208, 2008, 5668, where the creditor is a co-defendant, and filed a lawsuit for revocation of fraudulent act, etc. (2) the creditor against the debtor on April 21, 2009, as the preserved right, ordered a provisional seizure order against the debtor's third party debtor's claim for the amount of dividends received to the Republic of Korea (Seoul High Court 2009Kahap565, Seoul High Court 2009, 3) the appellate court, on September 15, 2009, ruled that "the defendant (debtor) would pay 14 million won to the plaintiff (creditor) and the above judgment became final and conclusive, and that the above provisional seizure order was revoked as the provisional seizure order against the debtor on 200,000 won and the above provisional seizure order against the debtor on 200,000 won of the above claim for the provisional seizure order.

3. However, the above determination by the court below is not acceptable in light of the legal principles as seen earlier.

A. According to the records, the Seoul High Court 2009Kahap565 (Seoul High Court 2009Kahap565) received the provisional seizure order as above: (2) On the other hand, on June 1, 2009, the Seoul East East District Court 2008 Kadong District Court 20576 (Seoul East District Court 2008 Kadan14576), the distribution table was prepared to distribute the amount of KRW 185,924,841 to the debtor, the owner on June 26, 2009, and upon the provisional seizure order, 169,497,820 out of the amount of dividends to the debtor was deposited with the Seoul East District Court 169,47,820 won; (3) the creditor, after the judgment of revocation of the above fraudulent act became final, requested the above provisional seizure order as well as the above provisional seizure order as 300 Ga 29,209 Ga 29, 2009.

B. If the facts are identical, at the time of the instant seizure and collection order, the Seoul Central District Court issued the above Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap565, which had already been issued a seizure and collection order of the above Seoul Central District Court 2009 Tahap31229, which transferred the provisional seizure as the provisional seizure, and the seized claim exceeds the creditor's execution claim amounting to KRW 14 million and execution cost, as the debtor's dividend receipt claim against the Republic of Korea, and thus, the court below should have dismissed the creditor's application for the seizure and collection order of this case, separately after the above seizure and collection order was issued (the creditor obtains satisfaction by withdrawing the creditor's entire execution claim according to the above Seoul Central District Court 2009Kahap31229, and this is before the judgment of the court below).

C. Nevertheless, the court below maintained the decision of the court of first instance that approved the seizure and collection order of the corresponding case, which held that the seizure and collection order of the corresponding case was lawful. In so doing, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the limitation of seizure and prohibition of excessive seizure.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and this case is sufficient to be judged by the Supreme Court, and therefore, it is decided to be readable. The decision of the court of first instance is revoked, and the application for the seizure and collection order is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)