Where a collection order overlaps, the validity of the third obligor's performance to one of such creditors, if any.

In the event that the collection order has been issued simultaneously or at this time, the order of priority cannot exist between them, and the status of the execution creditor who collects the claim upon obtaining the collection order has the objective to satisfy his own claim. However, in the case where seizure competes, or where there exists a demand for distribution, it can be said that the third debtor performs the collection from the third debtor for all the creditors taking part in the seizure or distribution as a kind of collection institution based on the authorization of the execution court. Thus, the performance of the third debtor is naturally effective against all the above creditors, and the third debtor is discharged from the debt by the repayment thereof, and therefore the other execution creditor cannot re-request the repayment to the third debtor.

Articles 563 and 565 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 70Da129 Delivered on March 24, 1970

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 et al.

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na14477 decided May 1, 200

Daegu District Court Decision 85Na744 delivered on March 12, 1986

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below, based on its macroficial evidence, received a seizure and collection order as to the claim for the price for the goods held by the non-party 1 against the defendant who is the debtor as the non-party 1, as the Daegu District Court 85TT2212, 2213 on March 20, 1985 under the name of debt against the non-party 1, and the order was served on the defendant on March 21, 1985. Meanwhile, as to the claim for the price for the goods held by the non-party 1 against the defendant, the non-party 2 was issued to the non-party 3 as the previous court 84T5319,5320 on June 25, 1984, and served the decision around that time after being issued with the seizure and collection order against the non-party 1, the non-party 3 debtor, the collection creditor at the end of the same month, and thus, it cannot be viewed as a new collection order for the plaintiff's own debt or a new collection order.

Therefore, in this case, even if the plaintiff, like the theory of lawsuit, seized the original claim against the non-party 1 as of April 2, 1984 against the non-party 2, as of the original claim against the non-party 1, the claims collection right of the non-party 2 holding the claims seizure and collection order cannot be excluded, and the defendant (the third party debtor) who responded to the collection will be exempted from the debt. The judgment of the court below's rejection of the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the conclusion is justified, and there is no ground to hold that there is an error of law in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the effect that the provisional seizure against the claims against the other execution creditor

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 Il-young (Presiding Justice)