(a) Validity of an assignment order defective in the content;

(b) Whether a disposition of non-acceptance of the claims for recovery of deposited goods is appropriate, where the claims for recovery of deposited goods are seized or entirely taken;

(a) An assignment order shall have the effect of termination of compulsory execution, even if its content is unlawful as long as it is lawful in its form, if it is issued and served on the debtor and the third debtor;

B. Since the public official who is outside the formal review right cannot examine the invalidity and invalidity of the assignment order, the disposition of the public official who has not accepted the claim for recovery of the deposit of this case on the ground that the claim for recovery of the deposited article was already seized and fully executed is justifiable, and the confirmation of substantial legal relationship with the claim for recovery of deposited article should be resolved separately as a matter between the parties concerned.

A. Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

(a) Supreme Court Order 82Ma854 Dated January 26, 1983

[Judgment of the court below]

Seoul Central District Court Order 82Ma3536 Dated September 16, 1982

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

As long as an assignment order is lawful in its form, even if its contents are null and void, if it is issued and served on the debtor and the third debtor, it is not possible for the public depository official to examine the loss and invalidity of the assignment order. Thus, the disposition of the public official who accepted the claim for recovery of deposit of this case on the ground that the above claim for recovery of deposit of this case was seized in advance and the whole amount of the claim for recovery of deposit of this case is justified. Furthermore, the confirmation of substantial legal relationship with the above claim for recovery of deposit of this case cannot be resolved separately as the relation between the parties concerned.

In addition, such objection may not be different in a case where the court decides the validity of the above disposition in a case where an objection is filed against the above deposited official's disposition. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jung-soo (Presiding Justice) and Lee Jong-young's Lee Jong-young