A. Whether a claim for full payment can be changed to a claim for damages arising from a tort (affirmative)

(b) Where an assignment order is null and void due to competition with a seizure, the validity of the full repayment made by a garnishee to his/her entire creditor;

(c) A case where a third-party obligor’s repayment to the whole creditor who has received an order for whole under concurrent seizure constitutes a tort;

A. The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the entire amount against the Defendant, the garnishee, based on the attachment and assignment order, and the alteration to the claim for compensation on the ground that the Defendant repaid the entire amount of the claim to the obligee without permission and the Plaintiff sustained damages, is nothing more than a case where only the solution method is different in a dispute over the same living facts or economic interests, and thus, there is a change in the basis of the claim.

B. In a case where provisional seizure against claims or seizure concurrently competes with the execution creditor, even if the assignment order becomes null and void even if the execution creditor receives the assignment order, but even in such a case, the entire creditor shall be deemed to be a quasi-Possessor of the claim. Thus, if the garnishee has repaid the whole amount to the creditor, if the garnishee was in good faith and without fault, the performance is valid pursuant to Article 470 of the Civil Act, and the third debtor is not liable for double payment to the other execution creditor, but the third debtor is not liable for double payment, on the other hand, if the third debtor did not bona fide and negligently pay the whole amount, the repayment made by the third debtor to the whole creditor is null and void, and the third debtor is liable for damages arising therefrom to the concurrent seizure creditor.

C. Although Eul's assignment order was made in competition with Gap's seizure and it was known or could have known that Byung, a third debtor, was null and void, Byung, without disputing Eul's claim for total amount of money, was sentenced to a favorable judgment of Eul based on the constructive confession, and if Byung repaid it within 80 days, Byung shall be deemed to have committed an intentional or negligent act that constitutes a tort that actively infringes Gap's seizure claim.

Articles 235(1) and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act; Articles 750 and 470 of the Civil Act

B. Supreme Court Decision 78Da1292 delivered on September 30, 1980

[Judgment of the court below]

Defendant Lee-hee, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Daegu High Court Decision 86Na621 delivered on January 20, 1987

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

With respect to No. 1:

The Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the full amount against the Defendant, the garnishee, based on the attachment and assignment order, and the alteration of the claim for compensation on the ground that the Defendant incurred losses to the obligee due to the repayment of the full amount of the claim, which the Defendant competes with, is nothing more than the case where only the method of resolution is different in a dispute over the same living facts or economic interests, and thus, there is a change in the basis of the claim.

Therefore, the appeal that there is an error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the modification of claim is groundless.

With respect to the second ground:

In cases where the provisional seizure or seizure of a claim competes with each other, the assignment order shall be null and void even if the person who made the execution creditor's order receives the whole order. However, even in such a case, if the third-party debtor fully pays the whole amount to the creditor, if the third-party debtor is in good faith and without fault, the performance shall be valid pursuant to Article 470 of the Civil Act, and the third-party debtor shall not be liable to make a double payment to the other execution creditor. On the other hand, if the third-party debtor does not bona fide and negligently pay the whole amount, the repayment made by the third-party debtor to the whole creditor shall be null and void, and the third-party debtor shall be liable to compensate for damages arising therefrom against the concurrent seizure creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da1292 delivered on September 30, 1980).

However, according to the facts established by the court below, on July 19, 1985, the plaintiff made the non-party 1 as the debtor and the defendant as the third debtor, and received an order to seize and seize the claim amounting to KRW 5,836,550 against the non-party 1's defendant, while the non-party 5,100,000 among the same claim was subject to the provisional seizure order on the claim on June 27 of the same year. On August 13 of the same year, the original copy of the above order was delivered to the defendant each time under the order to seize and attach the claim, and thereafter, the non-party company filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the full payment claim based on the above assignment order, and the defendant was absent on the date of pleading, and the defendant paid KRW 5,100,000 to the non-party company on October 23 of the same year.

If the facts are identical to this, the assignment order of the above non-party company is null and void because it was already made in competition with the plaintiff's seizure, and the defendant had already been served with the plaintiff's seizure and assignment order before being served with the whole order of the non-party company. Thus, the above assignment order of the non-party company was null and void or could have known that the above non-party company's assignment order was null and void. Nevertheless, as seen above, if the defendant did not dispute the above non-party company's claim for full payment with the circumstances mentioned above, and the judgment in favor of the above non-party company was rendered, and the defendant promptly repaid the above (80 days) without regard to the above non-party company's claim for full payment, it shall be deemed that there was an intentional act or negligence as set forth in the court below's decision. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that the defendant's above repayment act constitutes a tort that actively infringes the plaintiff's seizure claim of the non-party company, which is the creditor, and there

In addition, the purport of the Supreme Court precedents cited as arguments is that the repayment to all creditors pursuant to an invalid assignment order should be deemed to be a bona fide and without fault in general cases, and it does not mean that the Defendant’s repayment is a negligence without fault in the same case.

Therefore, this paper is without merit.

With respect to the third point:

In the case of this case, as pointed out in the arguments, the repayment of the whole amount by the defendant is null and void, and the seizure of the plaintiff's claim, which is the creditor, continues to exist in conjunction with the seizure of the above non-party company, and even if the plaintiff can collect the seized claim after receiving a collection order again for the concurrent portions and receive dividends in accordance with the amount of the claim, it cannot be said that the defendant's tort committed by infringing the plaintiff's seizure claim or interfere with the plaintiff's claim for damages. Thus, as pointed out in the decision of the court below, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles

Therefore, the defendant's 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 Ansan-man (Presiding Justice)