Since the content of the claim to be seized is not specified and the attachment order is omitted in the performance order against the third debtor, which is the necessary entry of the attachment notice, so if the attachment of the claim becomes null and void, it cannot be retroactively cured.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 201Na1448 delivered on August 1, 201

Seoul High Court Decision 72Na306 delivered on September 29, 1972

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal by the plaintiff performer are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, upon citing the judgment, the head of the Daegu District Tax Office stated that the attachment report (Evidence A8) and the notice of property attachment (Evidence A-1, 2) alleged that the deposit was to be attached on December 14, 1968. In addition, if the non-party cooperative stated only "5,586,00 won deposit amount of KRW 4,853,967, which is the Seoul District Court deposit amount" in the indication column of attached property, and the attached money was not stated in the deposit number or deposit date, and the non-party metal industry cooperative did not enter the deposit amount in the deposit number or deposit number of KRW 630 on January 29, 1968, which was deposited in KRW 5,00,000, which was deposited in KRW 5,586,000,000 and the above non-party cooperative stated that the attachment order was invalid, and the head of the tax office of the Daegu District Tax Collection Act did not state the above stated that the attachment order was invalid.

This paper deals with different views on the specification of claims to be attached, and argues that there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles in the original judgment, or in the omission of judgment, or in the illegality of reasons, under the independent interpretation on the prohibition of performance of obligation under Article 63 of the former Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act.

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

Justices Kim Young-ba (Presiding Justice)