Where a creditor has determined the amount of compensation in consideration of the fault of a third party who has contributed to the expansion of the damage, if he/she continuously maintains the state of seizure and is liable for damage caused by illegal enforcement, although he/she knew or could have known that the subject matter of seizure was owned by

The case holding that where a creditor has known or could have known that the subject matter of attachment was owned by a third party, and is liable for damages due to illegal enforcement by continuing to maintain the condition of attachment, the price of the movable that the creditor seized is considerably high, while the creditor's claim amount of the movable is considerably small, and thus there is a significant difference between the claim amount of the creditor who seized the movable and the claim amount of the movable that has been seized, so it can prevent the expansion of damages by seeking methods such as deposit of the creditor's claim amount and the amount equivalent to the interest on the delay of the execution in accordance with Article 509 of the Civil Procedure Act as a provisional disposition, and seek for the cancellation of the execution disposition, on the ground that the creditor did not pay it, and that the third party's error caused the extension of damages due to the seizure, and thus the creditor should take into account the calculation of the damages to be compensated.

[1] Articles 396 and 763 of the Civil Code, Article 509 of the Civil Procedure Act

Cheong-soo (Attorney Cho Jong-ho, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Preferred Steel (Law Firm Busan General Law Office, Attorney Choi Sung-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Busan District Court Decision 200Na11402 delivered on October 11, 2000

1. The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff falling under the following order shall be revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 33,600,000 won with 5% per annum from June 1, 1999 to December 6, 2001, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

3. All the costs of the lawsuit shall be five minutes for the first and second instances, and four minutes for them shall be borne by the plaintiff and the remainder by the defendant respectively.

4. The part on which money is paid under paragraph (1) may be provisionally executed.

The judgment of the court below is revoked. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 165,200,000 won with 5% interest per annum from June 1, 1999 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 25% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or there is no dispute between Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 8-2, Eul evidence 1-1, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 7-2, Eul evidence 7-2, and evidence of the court below and the court of the court of the court of the court below, and the witness testimony of the court of the court below and the court of the court of the court of the first instance in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings. Contrary to this, Eul evidence of Nos. 9 and 10-1 through 4, and some testimony of the witness prone of the court of the court below are not believed, and evidence of No. 8-4, Eul evidence 6-1 is insufficient to reverse it, and there is no other counter-proof.

가.소외 정도건설 주식회사(이하 '정도건설'이라 한다)는 1997년 7월경 소외 주식회사 석원건설과 공동으로 대한주택공사로부터 부산 사하구 구평동 택지개발사업지구 내 토석채취 및 반출공사를 도급받은 뒤 1997. 7. 30. 원고로부터 위 토석채취 후 돌을 파쇄하는 작업에 필요한 쇄석장비인 싸이몬스 1300 기계(크랴샤) 2대(이하 '이 사건 동산'이라 한다)등을 월 임료 30,000,000원, 기간 1997. 9. 1.부터 1998. 12. 31.까지로 각 정하여 임대받는 한편 피고로부터는 1997년 9월경 그 소유의 굴삭기를 임대받았다.

(b)In subsequent cases, the Defendant, a creditor of the set-off rental fee for accuracy construction, filed a lawsuit against the maximum construction at the Busan District Court 98 Ghana61524, the claim for a promissory note amounting to KRW 15,000,000 at par value, and obtained a favorable judgment, and seized the movables, etc. of this case, which are possessed by the maximum construction on May 28, 1998, based on an authenticated copy of the judgment with executory power in respect of the claim

C. In this regard, on June 11, 1998, the Plaintiff was owned by the Plaintiff and filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the Defendant by a third party against Busan District Court 98Da47586, which sought the exclusion of compulsory execution against the instant movable, and the duplicate of the complaint was served on the Defendant on June 18, 1998. The instant movable was recognized as owned by the Plaintiff in the said lawsuit, and thus, the Plaintiff was sentenced to a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff ordering the refusal of compulsory execution against the instant movable on October 28, 1998, and the said judgment became final and conclusive on November 27, 1998.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

(a) A captain;

On May 2, 1998, the Plaintiff agreed to lease the movable property of this case, etc., which is its own possession, to the urban engineering corporation, for a fixed period of 28,00,000 won per month from June 1, 1998 to December 30, 1998, and the Defendant, on May 28, 1998, could not lease the above movable property to the urban engineering, although he knew or could have known that the above movable was the Plaintiff’s ownership. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that, since June 1, 1998, the above third party’s lawsuit became final and conclusive after the execution date of the attachment, the Plaintiff suffered damages for five months from November 27, 1998 to November 27, 199, by rent 165,200,000 won per x 300,000 won per x 208,000 won per x 300,000 won per x 208.

(b) Markets:

(1)Therefore, first of all, as to whether there was intention or negligence at the time of the above seizure to the Defendant, the health account statement No. 7, corresponding thereto, and the testimony of the witness at the original instance and the trial party witness at the court below is not trust, but it is insufficient to recognize only a part of the evidence No. 1, and there is no other counter-proof.

그러나 피고가 위 압류 당시에는 고의·과실이 없었다 하더라도 그 후 압류목적물이 제3자의 소유임을 알았거나 용이하게 알 수 있었음에도 불구하고 그 압류상태를 계속 유지한 때에는 압류목적물이 제3자의 소유임을 알았거나 용이하게 알 수 있었던 때로부터 불법집행으로 인한 손해배상책임을 면할 수 없다 할 것인바( 대법원 1999. 4. 9. 선고 98다59767 판결 참조), 앞서 본 인정 사실에다가 피고는 원고와 같은 중기임대업자로서 이 사건 동산과 같은 크랴샤는 임차하여 사용하는 경우가 흔히 있다는 것을 알고 있었던 것으로 보이는 점(원심 증인 이형우의 일부 증언), 위 압류집행 당시 채무자인 정도건설의 직원으로 참여하였던 정도건설 자재관리과장 소외 김성수가 이 사건 동산은 정도건설의 소유가 아니라며 집행관 김문웅 작성의 압류조서에 날인을 거부한 점(갑 제1, 7, 13호증의 각 기재) 등을 종합하여 보면, 적어도 피고로서는 원고가 이 사건 동산에 대한 소유권을 주장하면서 위 동산에 대한 강제집행의 불허를 구하는 내용의 위 제3자이의의 소의 소장을 받아 본 1998. 6. 18.부터 상당한 기간인 같은 해 6. 27.까지 내에 위 구평동 토석채취 및 반출공사의 일부를 원고와 공동으로 수급한 석원개발에 이 사건 동산의 소유관계를 확인해 보는 등 조치를 취함으로써 이 사건 동산이 원고의 소유임을 용이하게 알 수 있었으리라고 추정되고 따라서 피고는 위 상당기간이 경과한 같은 해 6. 28.부터 이 사건 동산의 소유자인 원고에 대하여 불법집행으로 인한 손해를 배상할 책임이 있다 할 것이다.

(2)나아가 손해배상의 범위에 관하여 보건대, 갑 제4, 5, 12호증의 각 기재와 일부 기재, 원심 및 당심 증인 정시우의 일부 증언에 의하면, 원고는 1998. 5. 2. 이 사건 동산 등을 도시엔지니어링에게 월 임료 28,000,000원, 임대차기간 1998. 6. 1.부터 1999. 12. 30.까지로 정하여 임대하기로 한 사실, 그런데 피고가 위 동산에 대하여 압류를 하는 바람에 위 임대차 계약이 합의해제된 사실, 크랴샤는 설치 및 시운전에 약 2개월이 소요되고, 그 기간은 임대기간에서 공제되는 사실을 인정할 수 있고, 갑 제8호증의 2, 갑 제13호증, 을 제3호증의 3의 각 일부 기재만으로는 이를 뒤집기에 부족하며 달리 반증이 없으므로, 이 사건 동산의 압류로 인한 손해액은, 피고가 이 사건 동산이 원고의 소유임을 알 수 있었을 것으로 추정되는 위 1998. 6. 28.부터 원고가 위 동산을 타에 임대하는 것이 가능하게 된 위 제3자이의의 소 확정일인 1998. 11. 27.까지 사이의 5개월 중 크라샤의 설치 및 시운전 소요기간 2개월을 공제한 3개월 간의 월 임대료 상당이라고 할 것이므로, 결국 위 압류로 인하여 원고가 입은 손해는 금 84,000,000원{3개월(임대가능기간 5개월－설치 및 시운전기간 2개월)×28,000,000원}이 된다.

However, according to Gap evidence No. 8-4, the price of the movable property of this case is about 350,00,000 won which is considerably high, while the defendant's claim amount which seized the above movable property is merely about 15,00,000 won, and there is a considerable difference between the claim amount of the defendant who seized the above movable property and the price of the seized movable property. In such a case, in order to prevent the increase of damages as well, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit by a third party, and as a provisional disposition, it could prevent the expansion of damages by making a deposit of the defendant's claim amount and the interest amount equivalent thereto under Article 509 of the Civil Procedure Act, and seeking the cancellation of the enforcement disposition (if the plaintiff applied for the suspension of execution, but did not file an application for the cancellation of execution). The plaintiff's error is deemed to have caused the expansion of damages due to the above seizure x the amount of damages to be calculated by the defendant x the above 600,000 won / 1600.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3,60,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from June 1, 1999 to December 6, 2001, which is deemed reasonable for the defendant to dispute about the existence and scope of the obligation to pay to the plaintiff from June 1, 199 to June 6, 2001, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable within the above recognition scope, and the remaining claims are dismissed as they are without merit. The judgment of the court below is unfair, and the plaintiff's appeal is partially justified, and the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the above recognition amount is revoked, and the defendant is ordered to pay the above recognition amount to the defendant, and the remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Jong-sung (Presiding Judge)