[1] In a case where a ruling of correction of provisional seizure of claim becomes final and conclusive, the time of the basic validity of the ruling of provisional seizure of claim with corrected contents (=when the original copy of the ruling of provisional seizure of claim was served on the garnishee)

[2] The time when the decision of correction of provisional seizure of claims takes effect where it is objectively deemed that the original decision would result in a substantial change in the identity of the original decision from the standpoint of the garnishee (=when the decision of correction was delivered to the third debtor)

[3] The case holding that the decision of provisional attachment of a claim against a third party obligor becomes effective when the decision of provisional attachment of a claim against a third party obligor is delivered to the third party obligor, even if the debtor's address and the representative director's name are accurately stated under the name of the debtor stated in the original decision of provisional attachment of claim, where the correction of provisional attachment of a claim against a third party obligor's company is corrected by correction of the debtor's trade name in the original decision of provisional attachment of claim

[1] Where a decision of correction of provisional seizure of claims becomes final and conclusive, the original decision of provisional seizure of claims shall have the same effect as the original decision of provisional seizure of claims, and in principle, the decision of provisional seizure of claims shall have the same effect as the original decision of provisional seizure of claims revised from the beginning. Thus, the original decision of provisional seizure of claims shall have the effect of the provisional

[2] The provisional seizure order against claims takes effect by delivering it to a third party obligor without examining the third party obligor. It is common that the third party obligor, who is not the direct party, does not know of the existence and content of the right to preserve claims, and even if it is objectively evident that there is an error in miscalculation, clerical error, or any other similar error in the original provisional seizure order against claims, even if it is objectively evident that there is an error in the original provisional seizure order against claims, from the standpoint of the third party obligor, there may be cases where it is difficult to find out that there is an error in miscalculation, clerical error, or any other similar error in the original provisional seizure order against claims. However, even in such a case, if the decision of provisional seizure uniformly becomes final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed reasonable from the perspective of the protection of the third party obligor, which is included in the dispute between the other parties. Thus, from the perspective of the third party obligor, if the decision of provisional seizure order objectively is deemed to substantially alter the original provisional seizure order against claims, it shall be deemed that it becomes effective only when the decision of provisional seizure is delivered to the third party obligor.

[3] The case holding that the decision of provisional attachment of a claim against a debtor is effective when the decision of provisional attachment of a claim against a third party debtor is delivered to the third party debtor, on the ground that the correction of the above name of the third party debtor is objectively made in light of the transaction situation of the third party debtor, even if the debtor's address and representative director's name were accurately stated under the name of the debtor stated in the original decision of provisional attachment of claim, and the correction of the debtor's trade name is objectively made in light of the third party debtor's transaction situation, etc.

[1] Articles 197, 210(1), 561, and 707 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 197, 210(1), 561, and 707 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 197, 210(1), 561, and 707 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 4294Du574 decided Jan. 25, 1962 (No. 10-1, 284) Supreme Court Decision 95Da15667 decided Feb. 13, 1998 (Gong1998Sang, 693)

Plaintiff (Attorney Hong-chul et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Hyundai Motor Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Jae-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 98Na49342 delivered on June 16, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

In a case where a decision to revise a provisional seizure order against claims becomes final and conclusive, the original decision to provisional seizure against claims is identical to that of the original decision to revise the provisional seizure order against claims. Thus, in principle, the decision to provisional seizure against claims takes effect retroactively to the time when the original of the original decision to provisional seizure against claims was served on the garnishee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da15667, Feb. 13, 1998; 4294Du674, Jan. 25, 1962).

However, the provisional seizure order against claims takes effect by delivering it to a third party obligor without examining the third party obligor. Since it is general that the third party obligor, who is not the direct party, becomes aware of the existence and content of the right to preserve claims only after being served with the original copy of the provisional seizure order against claims, even if it is objectively evident that there is an error in the calculation, clerical error, and other similar errors in the original provisional seizure order against claims, from the third party obligor's standpoint, there may be cases where it is difficult to find out that there is an error in the calculation, clerical error, and other similar errors in the original provisional seizure order against claims. In such a case, when the decision of provisional seizure against claims uniformly becomes final and conclusive, it cannot be deemed reasonable from the perspective of the protection of the third party obligor incorporated in the dispute between other parties. Therefore, from the third party obligor's standpoint, if the decision of provisional seizure objectively is deemed to substantially alter the original provisional seizure order against claims, the decision of provisional seizure order shall take effect only when the decision of provisional seizure is served to the third party obligor.

However, according to the court below's duly admitted, the name of the debtor in this case is "Private Machinery Industry Corporation", and the original provisional seizure order of the debtor was corrected as "Private Machinery Industry Corporation" upon the decision of correction, and the debtor's trade name was corrected as "Private Machinery Corporation". Even if considering the debtor's address and representative director's name stated under the original provisional seizure order of claims were accurately stated in the debtor's trade name stated in the original provisional seizure order of claims, in light of the facts as to the defendant's trade situation duly admitted by the evidence of the court below, the correction of the above company's trade name objectively from the third debtor's point of view of the third debtor's trade situation, etc., the original provisional seizure order of this case where the debtor is the debtor of the non-party Private Industrial Machinery Corporation was delivered to the defendant. Further, the court below's decision that the defendant can oppose the plaintiff as repayment of provisional seizure claim before the decision of this case was delivered to the defendant, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the decision of correction of provisional seizure as stated in the ground 1.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed without any need to consider the second ground for appeal as to the judgment of the court below's as to the constructive judgment, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Yoon Jae-sik (Presiding Justice)