[1] The scope of each seizure where the seizure of a continuous imported claim conflicts with each other

[2] Where a garnishee has extinguished a seizure claim due to repayment to the legitimate collection authority, execution deposit, offset, or any other reason while the seizure of the claim is concurrent, the scope of the creditor having the effect

[3] Relating to the validity of prohibition of disposal of claims seizure

[4] Whether the selection party's authority and individual procedural acts require the consent of the selection party (negative)

[1] Where a new seizure order is issued in excess of the remainder after a part of a claim is seized, each seizure shall affect the whole of the claim (Article 568-2(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002). This does not change from the continuous receipt of the claim subject to the seizure. Therefore, where the seizure is conducted after several different dates of seizure for the continuous receipt of the claim, each seizure shall affect the whole of the claim subject to the seizure, unless the period of the occurrence of the claim subject to the seizure is specified specifically by limiting the period of the occurrence of the claim subject to the seizure in cases where the seizure is conducted after the different periods of seizure. On the other hand, even if another seizure was issued after the seizure, the effect of each seizure shall affect the whole of the claim accrued before the seizure, in principle, unless it is excluded from the effect of the seizure due to other causes.

[2] In the case of a seizure competition agreement, the creditor collecting the claims upon receiving a collection order is a kind of collection agency according to the authorization of the court of execution, and collects the claims from the third debtor for all creditors participating in the seizure or distribution. Thus, if the third debtor repays the claims to the legitimate collection authority, the effect of the third debtor shall affect all creditors in the relation of the seizure, and if the third debtor makes a deposit for execution, offsets or terminates the seizure claims due to other reasons, the effect shall also affect all creditors in the relation

[3] The prohibition of disposition of seizure is not absolute, but is limited to the relative effect in the sense that it cannot be set up against the creditor who participated in the execution procedure prior to disposition or repayment with the debtor's act of disposal or performance with the third debtor's repayment, and thus, in case where the debtor was disposed of or discharged by the third debtor prior to the entry into force of the seizure, even if the creditor who was first attached before the seizure has any circumstances which could not set up against the creditor, the creditor who received the order of seizure after disposition or

[4] The designated party has obtained the comprehensive authorization to perform the litigation from the designated party, and can perform not only all the procedural acts but also the judicial acts necessary for the performance of the lawsuit, and it does not require the selected party's individual consent in conducting the individual procedural acts.

[1] Article 586-2 (see current Article 235 of the Civil Execution Act) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) / [2] Article 563 (see current Article 229 of the Civil Procedure Act), Article 565 (see current Article 232 of the Civil Procedure Act) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) / [3] Article 561 (see current Article 227 of the Civil Procedure Act) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) / [4] Article 49 (see current Article 53 of the Civil Procedure Act) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002)

[2] Supreme Court Decision 70Da129 delivered on March 24, 1970 (Gong18-1, 269), Supreme Court Decision 86Meu988 delivered on September 9, 1986 (Gong1986, 1306), Supreme Court Decision 2000Da43819 Delivered on March 27, 2001 (Gong2001Sang, 996)

Plaintiff

Seoul Metropolitan Government Bus Transport Business Association (Attorney Seo-soo, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Decision 99Na74731 delivered on January 10, 2001

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul District Court Panel Division.

1. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 1 and 3

A. The court below rejected the judgment of the court below as follows: (a) employees of non-party 1 corporation including the plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "employee 1") obtained the provisional seizure order from the defendant's 19,00 won to the defendant's 19,000 won of the passenger's debt, and (b) obtained the provisional seizure order from the defendant's 19,00 won to the third party, and the defendant's 19,000 won to the third party as the debtor and the defendant as the third party debtor; (c) based on the notarial deed against the passenger 19,000,000 won, the amount of the above provisional seizure order issued to the defendant's 19,197,680 won to the defendant's 19,000 won of the passenger debt, and (d) based on the premise that the above provisional seizure order was not issued to the defendant's 19,000 won of the above amount of the seized passenger debt accrued before the seizure order becomes effective until the 235,438,819,019.

B. Where a new seizure order is issued in excess of the remainder after a part of the claim is seized, each seizure shall affect the whole of the claim (Article 568-2(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act prior to the amendment by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002). This does not change from the continuous revenue claim. Therefore, where the total seizure period is the same as the continuous revenue claim, each seizure shall affect the whole of the claim that occurred after the seizure, unless it specifically specifies the time of the occurrence of the claim that affects the effect of the seizure in cases where several continuous revenue claims are issued differently. In addition, even if other seizures are issued after the seizure, the effect of each seizure shall affect the whole of the claim that occurred before the seizure, unless the effect of the seizure is excluded due to other reasons.

In addition, in the case of a seizure competition agreement, the creditor collecting the claims upon receiving a collection order shall collect the claims from the third debtor for all creditors participating in the seizure or distribution as a kind of collection agency in accordance with the authorization of the execution court. Thus, if the third debtor repays the claims to the legitimate collection authority, the effect of the third debtor's repayment shall affect all creditors having the relation of seizure competition (see Supreme Court Decisions 2000Da43819, Mar. 27, 2001; 86Da988, Sept. 9, 1986). In addition, if the third debtor terminates the seized claims due to the deposit for execution or set-off or other reasons, the effect of the third debtor's repayment shall also affect all creditors having the relation of seizure competition.

C. Examining the record on the premise of the above legal principles, the effect of the attachment or provisional attachment does not appear to have been specifically limited to the time of the occurrence of the claim under which the attachment or provisional attachment prior to the attachment prior to the attachment has its effect, and as a matter of principle, the effect of the attachment or provisional attachment extends to not only the transport income accrued prior to the attachment but also the transport income accrued after the attachment. However, as long as the total amount of the transport income accrued from the first attachment or provisional attachment after the seizure of the passenger's transport income prior to the attachment prior to the attachment after the initial attachment or provisional attachment is clearly less than the sum of the amount of the seizure or provisional attachment of the passenger's transport income prior to the attachment, barring any special circumstance, the unpaid passenger's obligation to the defendant due to the attachment prior to or after the attachment of this case has become more than the sum of the amount of the seizure, and (2) the amount paid by the defendant to the creditor prior to the attachment should be deducted from the amount of the passenger's insurance charges prior to the attachment, and (3) it should be deducted from the amount of the loan.

Therefore, in determining whether the transport income claim exists, regardless of whether it was before or after the attachment of this case, the amount of the transport income claim against the defendant by the passengers who suffered from the first attachment of this case (it is recognized as KRW 2,319,180,741 in the record) should be deducted in full from the total amount of the transport income claim (it is recognized as KRW 2,319,180,741 in the record) before and after the attachment of this case. However, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to competition and validity of the attachment, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

2. As to the ground of appeal Nos. 2 and 5 A

A. In addition, the court below rejected the defendant's assertion that the amount should be deducted from the plaintiff's seizure amount because the defendant paid the minimum operating expenses of 1,079,447,843 won, which are the minimum operating expenses necessary to continue bus transport to the injured passengers, on the ground that the defendant's assertion that the amount should be deducted from the plaintiff's seizure amount was not made (it is understood that operating expenses should be deducted from the transportation income before the seizure of this case even if they are subject to deduction), and that the payment of 242,908,860 won paid after the seizure of this case cannot be asserted against the plaintiff who is the seizure right holder due to its nature, even though it is recognized that the payment was made, and that there was no evidence to prove that the plaintiff and the injured passenger's consent was given to the payment.

B. The prohibition of seizure is not absolute, but is only absolute, and it has a relative effect in the sense that it cannot be set up against the execution creditor who participated in the execution procedure prior to disposition or performance with the debtor's disposal act or with the third debtor's repayment. In the event the debtor either disposed of or discharged by the third debtor prior to the entry into force of the seizure, even if there are circumstances which make it impossible for the creditor to set up against the creditor, the creditor who received the order of seizure after disposition or performance becomes a valid disposition or performance.

C. According to the records in this case, it is recognized that the defendant paid a considerable amount to the pan-government passenger prior to the seizure of this case in terms of operating expenses and that money has the nature of the repayment of transportation revenue claim, which is the object of the seizure. In light of the above legal principles and the relative effect of the seizure, the plaintiff who is the seizure right holder after the seizure can assert the effect of repayment in full. Therefore, the court below omitted the judgment of the defendant on this part on the premise that the payment of operating expenses before the seizure of this case is not effective to the plaintiff, and omitted the judgment of the court below which omitted the judgment of the defendant on this part on the premise that the plaintiff

D. Meanwhile, according to the records, 242,908,860 won paid after the seizure of this case, the seizure and collection order of this case was issued by ○○○ as the designated party, and ○○○○, as the designated party, agreed that the defendant would not claim the effect of the seizure of this case against the amount of operating expenses paid by the defendant. Thus, the designated party is granted the comprehensive authorization for the execution of the lawsuit from the designated party, and it is possible for the designated party to conduct all procedural acts as well as private procedural acts necessary for the performance of the lawsuit, and individual consent is not required in conducting individual procedural acts. However, the court below did not examine whether ○○○○○ agreed the above as the qualification of the designated party, and the payment of the above amount was not effective against the plaintiff on the ground that the agreement cannot be seen as having been approved by workers such as the plaintiff. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the designated party and failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations.

3. Therefore, without examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Ji-dam (Presiding Justice)