(a) Criteria for decision of heating between the person who has executed an order of provisional seizure on the same claim as the transferee of claim;

(b) Where the original of notification of assignment of claims and decision of provisional seizure have arrived at the same time on the debtor, whether the transferee of claims or the creditor of provisional seizure has obligation to settle accounts between the parties

(c) A statement of assignment of claims and an exemplification of a provisional seizure ruling, which is simultaneously served by the debtor;

(d) Whether notification of assignment of claims and determination of provisional seizure have arrived at the same date, and whether they have arrived simultaneously;

A. In a case where a claim is transferred twice, the order between the assignee is not determined by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor’s recognition on the assignment of claim, namely, by the date and time when the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the debtor or by the date and time when the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the debtor’s consent. This legal doctrine applies to the case where the transferee determines the order between the executor of the provisional seizure order and the transferee of the same claim. Thus, the order of assignment with the fixed date and the order of provisional seizure should be determined by the prior date when the garnishee (the debtor in the case

B. The assignee, provisional seizure or seizure order, etc. of a claim is served simultaneously with the garnishee and there is no heat among them, and the assignee, provisional seizure or seizure creditor shall be deemed to have full opposing power against the garnishee. Thus, the full amount of the claim acquisition amount, the installment prior to seizure or collection claim may be demanded, and the payment may be lawfully made. The garnishee, as a third obligor, shall be entitled to the full amount of the claim to be discharged from the relationship with other creditors if he/she fully performs the obligation. If the total amount of the transferred claim amount, provisional seizure or seizure exceeds the amount of the claim against the garnishee, he/she shall be entitled to the equal legal status among them, and thus, he/she shall be obliged to sufficiently settle the claim amount in accordance with the principle of equity.

C. Even after the notification of the transfer of claim and the provisional attachment or seizure order are deemed to have been served simultaneously with the garnishee, in case where the debtor has lost the full amount of the lawsuit filed by either the assignee of the claim and the creditor of the provisional attachment or seizure ordered by the collection order or the creditor of the execution, in light of the theory of res judicata, the garnishee may face double payment risks. Thus, even after the delivery at the same time, the garnishee may escape from the apprehension of legal relations by making a deposit for repayment on the ground that the creditor cannot be known, if the prior notice of the service is unknown.

(d) It shall be presumed that the notification of assignment of claims and the original copy of the decision on provisional seizure of claims have arrived at the same date, and that they have arrived at the same time unless there is any other proof

(a)(c)Article 450 of the Civil Code, Articles 561 and 707 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 487 of the Civil Code;

B. Supreme Court Decision 87Meu553 decided Aug. 18, 1987 (Gong1987, 1457) (repealed)

Plaintiff

Taejin Industrial Co., Ltd.

[Defendant-Appellant] Jin-Jin et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant-appellant

Busan District Court Decision 92Na16741 delivered on April 16, 1993

The judgment of the court of first instance is reversed, and the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of 6,290,000 won with 5% per annum from September 27, 1992 to April 26, 1994, and 25% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

The plaintiff's remaining appeal is dismissed.

Among the total litigation costs, the part resulting from participation shall be borne by the Intervenor joining the Defendant, and the remainder shall be borne by the Defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of submission of the supplemental appellate brief after the lapse of the period for supplemental appellate brief).

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged that on August 2, 1992, the non-party company Ajin Trade Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party company") transferred the claim for the amount of KRW 7,779,750 against the defendant to the plaintiff on August 2, 1992, and notified the above transfer by a content-certified mail with a fixed date and reached the defendant on August 4 of the same month, and barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the above amount of KRW 7,779,750 to the plaintiff who is the assignee of the claim, and on the other hand, the non-party company's above claim amount of KRW 6,290,00 among the above claim against the non-party company's defendant, the non-party company, the debtor company, and the third debtor's defendant on August 3, 1992, the court below determined that the defendant was liable to pay the above amount of KRW 7,790,7907,7970,79,79797,700.

2. Where the claims are transferred double, the order between the assignee does not determine by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor's recognition of the assignment of claims, that is, by the date and time when the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the debtor or after the date and time of the consent with the fixed date. This legal principle also applies to the case where the transferee and the assignee of the provisional seizure order determines a friendly order between the obligor and the assignee of the provisional seizure order with respect to the same claims. Thus, the order of priority shall be determined by the date after the arrival of the original notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date and the original provisional seizure order (the obligor

Therefore, in this case, the decision of the court below that judged the priority as to the opposing power of the assignment of claims between the plaintiff who is the assignee of the claim and the intervenor who is the provisional seizure creditor on the basis of the arrival time of the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure is just, and it cannot be said that there is an error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the criteria for determining the opposing power of the assignment of claims, and there is no reason to criticize it.

3. The notification of the assignment of claims, provisional seizure or seizure order, etc. are served at the same time on the garnishee and there is no compromise among them, the transferee, provisional seizure or seizure creditor shall be deemed to have full opposing power against the garnishee. Thus, the transferee, the provisional seizure or seizure creditor shall be deemed to have full opposing power against the garnishee, and the full amount may be paid upon the request for the discharge of the claim, the installment prior to seizure or collection, and the payment may be lawfully. The garnishee, as a third obligor, shall be deemed to be effective in the relationship with the other creditors if he fully performs the obligation, and if the total amount of the transferred claim, provisional seizure or seizure exceeds the amount of the claim against the garnishee, he shall be deemed to have the obligation to adjust it internally in proportion to each claim under the principle of fairness.

However, even if the notification of the transfer of claim and the provisional attachment or seizure order are recognized to have been served simultaneously on the garnishee, and the debtor raises another problem about the future of the service, even after the full failure in the lawsuit filed by either the assignee of the claim and the creditor of the provisional attachment or seizure ordered by a collection order or the creditor of the execution, the garnishee in the theory of res judicata can be deemed to have the risk of double payment. Thus, even if the delivery was made at the same time, the garnishee may escape from the apprehension of legal relations by making a repayment deposit on the ground that the creditor cannot be known, if the prior notice of the service is unknown

Unlike the above legal principles among the precedents of a party member, the precedents purporting that in a case where the original copy of the assignment notification of claims and that of the provisional seizure ruling of claims reaches the garnishee at the same time, the obligor may oppose the assignee’s claim for the assignee’s transfer of claims and the original copy of the provisional seizure ruling of claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 87Meu553, Aug. 18, 1987).

In this case, the notice of assignment of claims to which the plaintiff is the assignee and the original copy of the decision on provisional seizure of claims to which the intervenor is the creditor has reached the defendant's date. However, there is no other proof as to the ex post facto relationship, and it is presumed that it has reached the same time

Therefore, since the plaintiff who is the transferee has met the requirements for setting up against the transfer of claims at the same time as the intervenor who is the provisional seizure creditor, the plaintiff can claim the defendant who is the debtor to pay the full amount of KRW 7,779,750, which is the claim for the transfer of claims, and the defendant who is the debtor cannot set up against the plaintiff on the ground that there is

In conclusion, in this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of the transferred claim amount of KRW 7,779,750, and delay damages therefor. Thus, the court below maintained the judgment of the first instance which held that the court below is obligated to pay the amount of the transferred claim amount of KRW 1,489,750, which deducts KRW 6,290,000 from the amount of the transferred claim amount of KRW 1,489,750 and its delay damages, and dismissed the plaintiff's appeal by maintaining the judgment of the court of first instance that dismissed the plaintiff's appeal by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the legal relationship where the original copy of

4. Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and since the case is sufficient to be tried by the confirmation of the court below, the members of the court of first instance shall be self-employed. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the above 6,290,000 won among the above 6,290 won and the day following the delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff against the above 6,290,000 won from September 27, 1992 to April 26, 1994, which is the date of the judgment of the court of first instance, the above 5% per annum under the Civil Act until April 26, 1994, and the above 25% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc. from the next day to the full payment date, the above amount shall be paid to the defendant. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff shall be dismissed as without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Jong-young (Presiding Justice) (Presiding Justice)