Whether a third party debtor's deposit on the ground of provisional seizure of claim has the effect of blocking subscription to a dividend (negative) and the requirements for execution of the distribution procedure for the above deposit

Unlike the deposit of a third party obligor on the ground of provisional seizure of claims, the provisional seizure of claims does not have an effect to determine the scope of creditors who are entitled to receive distributions from the deposit money, even if the third party obligor of the provisional seizure deposits and reports the reason for deposit to the court, the distribution procedure may not be implemented. The distribution procedure may be conducted only when the debtor's right to claim for payment of deposit money is reported to the court.

Articles 248(1), 291, and 297 of the Civil Execution Act

Plaintiff

(Attorney Yu Byung-il et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Na7857 Decided February 4, 2005

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

1. Basic facts acknowledged by the court below

A. The Plaintiff (Appointed Party, hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and the designated parties are the employees of the Korea Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Korea Industrial”), and each of the money indicated in the table of wages in arrears and the amount of wages in arrears (hereinafter “attached Table”) indicated in the attached Table of the lower judgment, as indicated in the table of wages in arrears (hereinafter “attached Table”), have a wage claim against each of the our industries.

B. On November 19, 2003, the Korean Industry transferred KRW 51,453,416, out of the principal and interest based on the final judgment of the purchase price case and the claim for the payment of litigation costs, to the Plaintiff, who was the representative of the designated parties, and sent the document of notifying the above transfer to the Pacific on the same day by mail with the content-certified document.

C. On the grounds that the above 200Kadan9532 was concurrent between the principal and interest on the case of the commercialtopy of our industry and the claim for payment of litigation costs by the defendant, the decision of provisional seizure by the defendant (the Daejeon District Court Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court 2003Kadan12875, the provisional seizure amount of 33,401,240 won, the delivery date on November 3, 2003), and the decision of provisional seizure by new Bank of Korea (the Seoul District Court 203Kadan223681, the provisional seizure amount of 10,000,000 won, the delivery date on November 22, 2003) and the above assignment of claims against the plaintiff (the delivery date by mail), and the notification of the provisional seizure of claims amount of 3,000 won to the Daejeon District Court 20,000 won except for the above provisional seizure amount of KRW 13,519,719,7516, Nov. 21, 2003

D. Accordingly, the Daejeon District Court established the procedure for distributing the claims on the basis of 2003tagi620, and served a notice of the date of distribution on the grounds of 10:00 on January 28, 2004 on the date of distribution on the basis of the original and the Defendant and the new bank.

E. On January 20, 2004, the Plaintiff submitted to the executing court a statement of claim statement to the effect that there is a wage claim such as the statement in the column of overdue wage in attached Table attached hereto, along with a confirmation of the existence of delayed payment of wages by the head of the office of regional labor in Incheon District Office, a notice of national pension information data prepared by the President of the National Pension Management Corporation, and a list of national health insurance policyholders in the National Health Insurance Corporation, etc. prepared by the National Health Insurance Corporation. However, on January 28, 2004, the executing court submitted a statement of claim statement to the Plaintiff that the above amount was changed by giving priority to the Plaintiff. However, on January 28, 2004, on the date of distribution of the claim distribution procedure in the above case of claim distribution procedure, the provisional seizure order by the Defendant takes priority over the notice of the Plaintiff's assignment of claims, and the Defendant distributes the above provisional seizure amount of KRW 33,401,240 to

F. Accordingly, the Plaintiff appeared on the aforementioned date of distribution and raised an objection, and thereafter filed the instant lawsuit on February 3, 2004.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

A. The judgment of the court below

The court below held that the amount stated in the "amount of overdue wages" column in the attached Table, which is the dividend amount for the plaintiff and the designated parties, should be corrected as 214,397 won among the dividend table prepared by the above court on January 28, 2004, and the amount stated in the "amount of overdue wages" column in the same Table, which is the dividend amount for the plaintiff and the designated parties, should be corrected as 23,401,240 won against the defendant among the dividend table prepared by the above court on January 28, 2004.

B. The judgment of this Court

However, we cannot accept the above decision of the court below for the following reasons.

Unlike the third debtor's deposit on the ground of provisional seizure of claim, the provisional seizure does not have an effect to determine the scope of creditors who are entitled to receive a distribution from the deposit, even if the third debtor of provisional seizure deposits and reports the reason for deposit to the court, the distribution procedure can not be conducted, and the distribution procedure can be conducted only when the debtor's claim for payment of the deposit is reported to the court.

According to the records, in this case, the provisional seizure order of each claim between the defendant and the new bank as the creditor was rendered, and it can be acknowledged that the debtor did not have any seizure of the claim for payment of the deposit money of the Korean industry. Thus, according to the above legal principles, it is unlawful to implement the distribution procedure under the above legal principles. Thus, it is unlawful to implement the distribution procedure under the Daejeon District Court's 2003tagi620. Thus, the plaintiff as the plaintiff may not dispute the distribution schedule under the procedure of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, regardless of the cancellation of the distribution schedule by raising an objection against the execution on the ground of the illegality of the distribution procedure or the correction of the illegal distribution procedure by other means.

Nevertheless, the court below determined that the dividend distribution schedule should be revised on the premise that the dividend distribution procedure in this case satisfies the implementation requirements. Thus, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the implementation requirements of the dividend procedure, which affected the conclusion of the judgment.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, without further examining the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)