Where the collection creditor of the seizure and collection order issued under the competition of seizure receives again the collection money of the third party debtor's monetary claim after receiving the seizure and collection order, the measures to be taken by the collection creditor.

The collection obligee upon receipt of a collection order, as a kind of collection agency on the basis of the authorization of the court of execution, shall exercise the claim in compliance with the purpose of the collection on behalf of the debtor, and in particular, in the event of competition, such as seizure, etc., all creditors participating in the seizure or distribution, shall collect the claim from the third obligor on behalf of the debtor. Thus, when the collection obligee exercises the duty of due care of a good manager for the debtor whose exercise of the seized claim is restricted, and when the collection obligee is paid the collection money from the third obligor without delay, all creditors participating in the seizure or distribution are obliged to obtain the satisfaction of the claim under the distribution procedure by making a deposit and report on the reason therefor, and when the third obligor does not voluntarily comply with the collection order due to the failure of the third obligor to comply with the collection order, thereby making a compulsory execution against the third obligor's property pursuant to the execution title, the same shall apply to the collection amount acquired. Accordingly, if the seizure and collection order issued under competition has been received again by the third obligor's monetary claim, the reason for the issuance should be reported to the court without delay.

Article 236 of the Civil Execution Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law Firm Gyeong, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Plaintiff

Defendant

Daegu District Court Decision 2007Na1553 Decided August 22, 2007

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

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The collection obligee upon receipt of the collection order is a kind of collection agency based on the authorization of the court of execution and exercises the claim in compliance with the purpose of the collection on behalf of the debtor. In particular, in the event of competition such as seizure, etc., all creditors participating in the seizure or distribution, the collection obligee is obligated to exercise the claim with the duty of due care of a good manager for the debtor who is under limitation in the exercise of the seized claim, and to obtain the satisfaction of the claim under the distribution procedure by making a deposit and report on the reason therefor without delay when the collection obligee is paid from the third obligor and all creditors participating in the seizure or distribution (see Supreme Court Decision 2004Da8753, Jul. 28, 2005). This legal principle also applies to the case where the collection obligee fails to comply with the collection order by the third obligor, and thereby, obtained the compulsory execution against the third obligor's property by the execution title after the third obligor filed a lawsuit against the third obligor.

Therefore, if the collection creditor of the seizure and collection order issued when the seizure competes with the third party debtor's monetary claim, again receives the collection amount after receiving the seizure and collection order, it is necessary to deposit without delay the collection money to the court issuing the seizure and collection order when the seizure competes with the seizure, and report the reason.

2. The court below, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, acknowledged the facts as stated in its decision after compiling the adopted evidence. The defendant received the seizure and collection order from the Busan District Court in the situation where the plaintiff's seizure on the non-party 1 corporation's claim for goods payment against the non-party 2, and received 52,512,433 won from the Changwon District Court as to the medical care benefit claim against the non-party 2, the third debtor, and received 52,512,43 won from the National Health Insurance Corporation after receiving the seizure and collection order from the Changwon District Court. Thus, in light of the above legal principles and records, the court below's above fact-finding and determination are just, and there is no violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation or misapprehension of legal principles as alleged in the grounds for appeal.

3. 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 Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)