Where an individual rehabilitation procedure commences when an assignment order on a claim that belongs to the individual rehabilitation foundation is not confirmed, and an immediate appeal is filed against an assignment order on such ground, the measures to be taken by the appellate court.

The procedure for compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition, which is already pending on any property that belongs to the individual rehabilitation estate on the basis of individual rehabilitation claims listed in the creditors list, was temporarily suspended upon the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, and, if the repayment plan is authorized, such procedure becomes null and void unless it is otherwise determined in the decision to authorize the repayment plan or the repayment plan. Therefore, under the status that the assignment order, which is issued on the basis of individual rehabilitation claims listed in the creditors list, is not yet effective on the ground that the individual rehabilitation procedure for the debtor is commenced and an immediate appeal is filed on the ground that it is not effective on the ground that the above assignment order was filed on the ground that, except in a case where the assignment order is revoked for any other reason, the appellate court shall revoke the entire order and dismiss the application for the assignment

Articles 600(1) and 615(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act, Article 229(7) and (8) of the Civil Execution Act

Re-appellant

Other Party

Seoul Central District Court Order 2006Ra255 dated August 31, 2007

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. The procedure of compulsory execution, provisional seizure, or provisional disposition, which is already pending on the property belonging to an individual rehabilitation foundation based on individual rehabilitation claims recorded in the list of creditors, was temporarily suspended upon the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures, and if the repayment plan is authorized, such effect shall be forfeited unless it is otherwise prescribed in the decision to authorize the repayment plan or the repayment plan (Articles 600(1) and 615(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act).

However, since an assignment order has an effect to be confirmed (Article 229(7) of the Civil Execution Act), under the condition that an assignment order issued on an individual rehabilitation claim based on the list of creditors has not yet become final and conclusive, and is ineffective, if an individual rehabilitation procedure commences against the debtor and an immediate appeal is filed against the above assignment order on the ground that it is based on such order, the appellate court shall revoke the entire order and dismiss the application for an assignment order on the ground that, except in a case where the assignment order is revoked for any other reason (see Article 229(8) of the Civil Execution Act) and the repayment plan is authorized, the appellate court has suspended a trial on the appeal, but has suspended the judgment

Meanwhile, in the event that an assignment order is confirmed, the execution of an assignment order is terminated by deeming that the debtor has repaid his/her obligation at the time when the assignment order was served on the third debtor (Article 231 of the Civil Execution Act). Thus, even if the repayment plan becomes effective after the commencement of the individual rehabilitation procedure for the debtor is approved thereafter, the assignment order that becomes effective shall not lose its effect. However, Article 616(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that, in order to promote the efficient rehabilitation of the individual debtor who is obligated to implement the repayment plan by receiving the benefit and making it the individual rehabilitation estate as its main part, Article 616(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act provides that even if the assignment order on the debtor's wage, pension, salary, bonus, and other wage claims of similar nature is finalized before the commencement of the individual rehabilitation procedure, if the repayment plan is approved, the assignment order becomes void.

2. According to the records, the re-appellant was granted an execution clause to succession to the original copy of the payment order in the loan case Seoul Central District Court 2005Ka8079 and accordingly applied for the attachment and assignment order for part of the debtor's wage claim against the third debtor, and the judicial assistant of the first instance court decided to accept it on April 12, 2006 (hereinafter "the decision of this case"). On April 13, 2006, the debtor's individual rehabilitation procedure was commenced on April 21, 2006, Seoul Central District Court 2006Da20545, the debtor filed an objection against the decision of this case on April 21, 2006, before the above assignment order becomes final and conclusive, and the first instance court was just to approve the decision of this case pursuant to Article 4 of the Judicial Assistant Rules and sent the case to the appellate court, which is the creditor's order of this case, which is the whole decision of the debtor's repayment plan of this case, and the debtor's individual rehabilitation plan of this case was ordered after the decision of this case.

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)