Where the ownership of the object of provisional seizure has been transferred to a third party after the execution of provisional seizure, the scope of the effect of prohibition of disposal of the provisional seizure, and whether the creditor of the third party may receive dividends from the auction procedure requested by the creditor (affirmative)

Where ownership of the object of provisional seizure has been transferred to a third party after the execution of provisional seizure, it is the exchange value of the object of provisional seizure within the limit of the claim amount at the time of the decision of provisional seizure. The effect of prohibition of disposal is only between the creditor of provisional seizure and the third party acquisitor. Therefore, in the auction procedure requested by the creditor of the third party, the object of provisional seizure is to be acquired by the successful bidder. However, although the creditor of provisional seizure can exercise preferential rights, the creditor of provisional seizure can exercise preferential rights, and the third party acquisitor's creditor should have several rights, so the creditor of provisional seizure may receive dividends from the proceeds of sale of the object of provisional seizure within the limit of the claim amount at the time of the decision of provisional seizure, and the creditor of the third party purchaser cannot receive dividends from the proceeds of sale to the amount within the limit of the claim amount at

Article 148 Subparag. 3, 276 of the Civil Execution Act

Plaintiff

Korean Lease Credit Co., Ltd. (Attorney Kim Gyeong-chul, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Suwon District Court Decision 2005Na3602 decided Feb. 15, 2006

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

We examine the grounds of appeal.

Where ownership of the object of provisional seizure has been transferred to a third party after the execution of provisional seizure, it is the exchange value of the object of provisional seizure within the limit of the claim amount at the time of the decision of provisional seizure. The effect of prohibition of disposal is only between the creditor of provisional seizure and the third party acquisitor, so the object of provisional seizure is the whole of the object of provisional seizure. However, in the auction procedure requested by the creditor of the third party, the creditor of provisional seizure may exercise preferential rights, and the third party purchaser shall have several creditors, so the creditor of provisional seizure may receive dividends from the proceeds of sale of the object of provisional seizure within the limit of the claim amount at the time of the decision of provisional seizure, and the creditor of the third party purchaser shall not receive dividends from the proceeds of sale to the amount within the limit of the claim amount at the time of the decision of provisional seizure.

In light of the records, the court below is just in holding that the non-party who was the third purchaser of the share in the real estate of this case and the defendant who acquired the right to collateral from the former owner can receive dividends only when the plaintiff, who was the creditor of the provisional seizure against the former owner, has a balance within the limit of the claim amount at the time of the provisional seizure decision. The court below did not err in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the dividends in

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 Lee Hong-hoon (Presiding Justice)