Where a provisional seizure and seizure are concurrent with the claims, the creditor of provisional seizure may not request again the garnishee to repay the claims, in the event that the garnishee has lawfully discharged the execution creditor who has received a collection order.

Where a provisional seizure and seizure are concurrent with the claims, the creditor of provisional seizure may not request again the garnishee to repay the claims, in the event that the garnishee has lawfully discharged the execution creditor who has received a collection order.

Article 563 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 580 of the Civil Procedure Act

Plaintiff

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 69Na159 delivered on December 17, 1969

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

In a case where the provisional seizure and the seizure of a claim against the garnishee competes with the debtor, the execution creditor who has received a collection order against the garnishee shall collect the claim from the garnishee for all the competing provisional seizure creditors and other persons participating in the distribution. Thus, the provisional seizure creditor may, after the claim becomes final and conclusive, request the garnishee to deliver the amount equivalent to his/her own distribution to the collection creditor, regardless of being given the amount of distribution from the above collection amount according to the validity of a demand for distribution of provisional seizure of the claim, and as long as the garnishee has legally repaid to the creditor who has received the collection order, the provisional seizure creditor cannot re-request the repayment of the claim against the garnishee whose obligation has been extinguished due to the repayment, and therefore, it shall be said that there is a provisional seizure creditor and it shall not affect any right of the creditor who has received the collection order.

On April 26, 1967, in this case, even if Nonparty 1 attached the claims for return of deposit money of KRW 100,000 against the Defendant of Nonparty 2, the original judgment that held the claims seizure and collection order cannot be excluded from the Plaintiff’s claims collection right, is just in the original judgment, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect of provisional seizure against the other execution creditors, by disregarding the effect of the demand for distribution by provisional seizure against Nonparty 1’s claims. Accordingly, the appeal is groundless.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed by the assent of all participating judges. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judge Han-dong (Presiding Judge) of the Supreme Court