Whether there exists any benefit in filing a lawsuit for objection or seeking confirmation of existence of an obligation after an assignment order has been served on the garnishee.

If an assignment order is issued by a creditor on the basis of the authentic deed of a promissory note against a third party debtor and the assignment order is served on the third party debtor, the obligation based on the above promissory note shall be deemed to have been repaid, and the compulsory execution procedure based on the above authentic deed shall be terminated. Accordingly, there is no interest in filing a lawsuit seeking the exclusion of executory power, and there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of the non-existence of the above promissory note obligation on the ground that the debtor has obtained the satisfaction of the claim based on the repayment prior to the assignment order or the above assignment order.

Articles 226, 228, 505, and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

- Machan

200,000

1. All of the plaintiff's lawsuits of this case are dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

In the first place, the defendants' notary public against the plaintiff is not allowed to enforce compulsory execution based on the No. 438 of the 87-year notarial deed from Korea-U.S. Law Office.

Preliminary, it is confirmed that the notary public against the plaintiffs does not exist in addition to the amount of gold 5,610,266 won as of April 20, 1991.

1. Judgment on the main claim

On July 2, 1987, the plaintiff issued 20,00,000 won at par value and 20,000,000, 1987.7.31 on July 31, 1987, respectively, a promissory note with the payment place, payment place, and place as Seoul as of July 31, 1987, and issued it to the above non-party deceased and the above defendant. The remaining defendants, the heir of the above non-party deceased, were the above defendant and the above non-party deceased on July 19, 190, on the ground that the notary public issued a promissory note with the payment place as Seoul as of July 31, 1987, and deliver it to the above non-party deceased and the above defendant, as of July 19, 1990, the plaintiff did not request the above non-party 1/2 of the remaining amount after deducting taxes and public charges from the amount of monthly salary, various allowances, bonus, etc., from the non-party 1/3333100.

A lawsuit of demurrer is raised to exclude executory power when there is an objection against a claim indicated in the name of debt. Therefore, if the title of debt exists and valid, it may be raised whenever there is an executory power. However, if a compulsory execution as a whole is completed on the basis of the name of debt, and the creditor's satisfaction is obtained, it is not permitted to file a lawsuit of objection. According to each of the above evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 6-2, according to the above evidence No. 1 and No. 6-2, as alleged by the plaintiff, the defendants pursuant to the above notarial deed of a promissorysory note as alleged by the plaintiff, on July 19, 190, on the basis of the above assertion of the plaintiff, the defendant issued a seizure and assignment order to the non-party Cho Jong Bank, Inc., and issued a seizure order until 20,000,000 and the assignment order was delivered to the non-party Cho Jong Bank, which is the third debtor, the assignment order of debt of this case was extinguished, and there is no evidence to deem that the assignment order of this case is void.

Thus, the plaintiff's primary claim of this case is unlawful without any need to further examine other issues.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim

The plaintiff asserts that from August 12, 1987 to April 28, 1990, the amount of KRW 11,000,000 among the obligations under the above promissory note notarial deed was repaid, and that the above amount of KRW 3,389,734 was repaid under the assignment order, so the above amount of the obligation under the said promissory note notarial deed was paid in 5,610,000 as of April 20, 1991 (=20,000-11,000,000-3, 389,734) was merely a mere amount of KRW 5,610,00 as of April 20, 1991.

Therefore, as seen in the judgment on the primary claim, it is evident that the assignment order, which is a compulsory execution by the above promissory note No. 31, is served on the garnishee, and the execution creditor's claim is extinguished and the plaintiff does not bear the obligation based on the above promissory note No. 31. Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of non-existence of the obligation on the ground that the defendants obtain satisfaction of the claim through either previous repayment or compulsory execution by the above notarial deed, and the subject of confirmation in the lawsuit for confirmation is the current rights or legal relations. The plaintiff's assertion itself cannot be viewed as a request for confirmation of the current legal relationship.

If so, this can be said to be a case where there is no benefit in confirmation, so the above preliminary claim is unlawful without need to further examine it.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims of this case are all unlawful and all are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judges Lee Dong-won (Presiding Judge)