In cases where a claim subject to seizure is transferred to a third party after seizure of the claim, whether the assignment of claim is valid in relation to other creditors, etc. of the obligor subject to seizure (affirmative); and in cases where the revocation judgment becomes final and conclusive as the assignment of claim is recognized as a fraudulent act, whether the effect of revocation is against other creditors who already seized the claim prior to

The prohibition against the disposition of seizure of claims is not absolute, but is limited to the relative effect that cannot be set up against the execution creditor within the extent of the effect of seizure even if there is an act of disposal by the debtor in conflict with this, so the assignment of claims after seizure is effective in relation to other creditors, etc. of the execution creditor in cases where the claims subject to seizure are transferred to a third party. Furthermore, even in cases where the assignment of claims is recognized as fraudulent act and the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the effect of revocation does not extend to

Articles 406 and 450 of the Civil Act, Article 227 of the Civil Execution Act

Supreme Court Decision 99Da72644 Decided April 21, 2000, Supreme Court Decision 2007Da47216 Decided September 25, 2008

Plaintiff (Law Firm Young-soo, Attorneys Lee Han-hoon et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Choi Han-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Cheongju District Court Decision 2013Na1786 decided January 14, 2014

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the second ground for appeal

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the lower court is justifiable to have determined that the instant assignment contract constitutes a fraudulent act on the grounds as stated in its reasoning. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the relevant legal doctrine or

Cases cited in the grounds of appeal are different from cases and are not appropriate to apply in this case.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The prohibition of a disposition of seizure on a claim is not absolute, but is limited to the relative effect that cannot be set up against the execution creditor within the extent of the effect of the seizure even if there is an act of disposal by the debtor in conflict with this, so the assignment of claims subject to seizure is valid in relation to other creditors, etc. of the execution debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da72644, Apr. 21, 200). In addition, even where the assignment of claims is recognized as a fraudulent act and the judgment of revocation becomes final and conclusive, the effect of revocation does not extend to other creditors who have already attached the claims prior to such fraudulent act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da47216, Sept. 25, 2008).

B. On August 1, 201, the lower court: (a) concluded a lease agreement with Nonparty 1 and the Defendant to lease the instant store at KRW 120 million; (b) KRW 6.5 million for monthly rent; and (c) from February 1, 2011 to January 31, 201, the lease agreement was concluded between Nonparty 1 and the Defendant’s joint lessee 1 and Nonparty 6; (b) obtained the attachment and collection order on KRW 20 million for the instant claim to return the lease deposit; and (c) obtained the attachment and collection order on December 27, 2011 from Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 3, the lower court determined that: (a) on the ground that Nonparty 1 and the instant claim to return the lease deposit was transferred to the lessor on December 29, 201; and (b) on the ground that Nonparty 2 acquired the lessor’s claim to return the lease deposit at KRW 106,000,000,000,000 from the instant claim to be transferred to Nonparty 16.

C. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the aforementioned legal principles, notwithstanding the assignment of the claim in this case, the defendant cannot set up against the non-party 2 against the non-party 2,00,000 won which already received a seizure and collection order, and as such, in the relationship between the plaintiff and the non-party 1's other creditors, including the plaintiff, the claim was transferred effectively. Thus, the court below ordered the return of the right to claim payment of deposit deposit amount of KRW 40,69,330 remaining after deducting only the overdue rent, etc. which the non-party 1, etc. should bear, from the claim to return the lease deposit in this case due to the cancellation of the fraudulent act, and the court below did not err by misapprehending the legal principles as to the scope of revocation of the fraudulent act or the burden of proof, which affected the conclusion of the judgment, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Conclusion

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

Justices Ko Young-han (Presiding Justice)