[1] The legislative intent of the revocation system of provisional seizure execution by deposit of the amount of damage from the sea

[2] In a case where other creditors of the debtor are ordered to seize the claims for recovery of the deposit for release from provisional seizure, whether provisional seizure by the creditor of provisional seizure conflicts with those of other creditors (affirmative)

[3] The case holding that even if the debtor deposited the total amount of the claims for provisional seizure as the deposit money for marine disaster prevention and received a decision to revoke the execution of provisional seizure, it is difficult to view that the other provisional seizure decision based on the same claim as the provisional seizure decision does not need further conservation due to changes in circumstances

[1] The revocation system of provisional attachment execution by deposit of the amount of release from the sea is to provide convenience to enable the debtor to choose a method to substitute the creditor's preservation of execution to the extent that it does not harm the creditor's interest, and to reduce the suffering from provisional attachment execution to the debtor. Thus, the benefit that can be enjoyed by provisional attachment by the creditor of provisional attachment should not be infringed by the revocation of provisional attachment execution.

[2] Under the Civil Execution Act of Korea, which takes the principle of equality of creditors, the execution of provisional seizure is limited to having the effect of prohibition of disposal of the object, and it does not require the creditor to acquire the right of priority on the object of provisional seizure, so long as the creditor does not obtain the right of priority on the deposit money in lieu of the object of provisional seizure, it does not require the creditor to obtain the right of priority on the deposit money in lieu of the object of provisional seizure, and in case where the amount of provisional seizure is deposited, if other creditors of the debtor are ordered to obtain the order of seizure of the right

[3] The case holding that even if the debtor deposited the total amount of the claim for provisional seizure as the deposit money for marine disaster prevention and received a decision to revoke the execution of provisional seizure, it is difficult to view that the other provisional seizure decision based on the same claim as the provisional seizure decision no longer needs to be preserved due to changes in circumstances

[1] Articles 282 and 299 of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Article 282 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Articles 277, 282, 288 and 299 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 97Da30820 delivered on June 26, 1998 (Gong1998Ha, 1963) / [2] Supreme Court Order 95Ma252 delivered on November 11, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 718)

Bok Construction Co., Ltd.

Daesung Co., Ltd.

January 20, 2005

1. The petitioner's application of this case is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the applicant;

With respect to a claim for provisional seizure of claim No. 2004Kahap636 of this Court between the claimant and the respondent, this Court's ruling of provisional seizure of claim No. 2004Kahap636 is revoked on August 25, 2004.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged in light of the whole purport of the arguments in each statement of evidence Nos. 1-2, and Nos. 2, and No. 1-2.

A. On August 25, 2004, the respondent filed an application for provisional attachment against the claim amounting to KRW 169,617,206 with respect to the claim amount against the applicant, and filed an application for provisional attachment against claim amounting to KRW 169,617,206 with this court under the Attached List No. 2004Kahap636, the respondent received a provisional attachment order citing the claim amount (hereinafter “instant provisional attachment order”).

B. Meanwhile, apart from the instant provisional attachment decision, the respondent applied for provisional attachment of the claim amounting to KRW 169,617,206 as stated in the foregoing paragraph (a) as the claim amount, and filed an application for provisional attachment of the claim amount as stated in the attached list (2) with this court No. 2004Kahap782, Oct. 7, 2004.

C. On November 10, 2004, the applicant deposited 169,617,206 won of the above provisional seizure claim amount as deposit money under the above court No. 6102 with the respondent as the beneficiary on November 10, 2004, and then filed an application for revocation of provisional seizure execution with the above court No. 2004Kag1394, Nov. 11, 2004.

2. The applicant's assertion and judgment

A. The applicant asserts that, inasmuch as the applicant deposited the entire amount of the claim for provisional seizure based on the same claim as the provisional seizure order of this case as the amount of the claim for provisional seizure of this case as the amount of the claim for provisional seizure of this case was deposited as the amount of marine deposit, the provisional seizure order of this case has no longer need to preserve due to changes in circumstances.

B. The purpose of the provisional seizure cancellation system by deposit of the amount of money to the extent that it does not harm the creditor's interest is to grant convenience to allow the debtor to choose a method to preserve the execution of the provisional seizure to the extent that it does not cause any damage to the creditor's interest, and thus, it should not be infringed upon the creditor's interest from provisional seizure by the provisional seizure's cancellation of provisional seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da30820 delivered on June 26, 1998). Thus, under the Civil Execution Act of the Republic of Korea where the principle of equality is equally applied, the execution of provisional seizure is merely effective against the object of provisional seizure, and it is difficult for the creditor to obtain the priority of the provisional seizure against the object of provisional seizure, and it is difficult for the creditor to obtain the right of priority to the provisional seizure deposit in lieu of the object of provisional seizure, and it does not exist that other creditor has the same reasons as the creditor's claim to collect the provisional seizure deposit of this case as the provisional seizure of this case.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the petitioner's petition of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges Yu-ro (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-sung