(a) The effective point of seizure or provisional seizure against the claim for transfer registration of ownership, and the base point of time for whether there exists validity in relation to the performance by a third party debtor or the debtor's disposal right holder;

(b) Whether an execution creditor, etc. who violates the seizure or provisional seizure against the right to request the transfer registration of ownership has validity (negative);

A. The effect of a seizure or provisional seizure of a right to claim the transfer registration of ownership is to be determined at the time when the seizure is served on the garnishee. Whether the third obligor's performance of obligation or the obligor's disposition violates the seizure or provisional seizure and thus has no effect in relation to the seizure right holder shall be determined at the time of the execution of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership which was seized or provisionally seized.

B. Where there is a seizure or provisional seizure against a claim for transfer registration of ownership, registration in violation thereof shall be null and void in relation to the seizure or provisional seizure obligee as well as to the transfer registration in question, which is a performance against a third debtor's debtor, and the same shall also apply where the registration in violation of the above is based on the final judgment.

Articles 57 and 696 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Park Dong-young et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant-appellee)

[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1 and 1 other (Attorney Park Hong-woo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Lee Jin-Law, Attorney Park Young-chul et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 88Na47798 delivered on June 14, 1989

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

As to the Defendant’s Attorney’s ground of appeal:

1. According to the judgment of the court below, the facts that the plaintiffs seized or provisionally seized the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the highest tax rate as to the share of the real estate in this case and that the defendant filed a lawsuit against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City and Seoul Special Metropolitan City by subrogationing the highest tax rate as to the share of the real estate in this case, and recognized the completion of the transfer registration of ownership on September 2, 1986, which was after the seizure or provisional seizure, and determined that the above transfer registration of ownership in the future of the defendant is null and void since the above transfer registration of ownership is in violation of the above seizure or provisional seizure in relation to the plaintiffs, and therefore the plaintiffs can seek

The defendant asserts that since the plaintiffs were transferred the above real estate shares from the highest tax on October 19, 1983 prior to the seizure or provisional seizure of the plaintiffs' right to claim the transfer registration of ownership, it cannot be affected by the seizure or provisional seizure of the plaintiffs. However, the effect of the seizure or provisional seizure of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership has occurred when the seizure was served on the third debtor. Whether the third debtor's performance of obligation or the debtor's disposition violates the seizure or provisional seizure is not effective in relation to the seizure right holder should be determined at the time of execution of the right to claim the transfer registration of ownership which was seized or provisionally seized (see Supreme Court Decision 82Da129, Oct. 12, 1982). The arguments are groundless.

2. If there is a seizure or provisional seizure against a claim for transfer of ownership, registration in violation thereof shall be deemed null and void in relation to not only the transfer of ownership, which is the performance against the garnishee, but also to all registrations made thereafter, as well as to the seizure or provisional seizure obligee. In addition, the same shall also apply where a registration in violation of the above provisions is based upon a final and conclusive judgment. The fact that registration in accordance with a final and conclusive judgment is valid unless the judgment is revoked or changed by a lawsuit for retrial is ultimately asserted as to the res judicata of the judgment, and the plaintiffs are not parties to the above final

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 Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice)