[1] In a case where an individual rehabilitation procedure commences on the grounds that a seizure and assignment order issued on an individual rehabilitation claim on the basis of an individual rehabilitation claim indicated in the list of creditors has not yet become final and conclusive as an immediate appeal filing, whether the re-appeal court may reverse and send the original judgment in order to deliberate on whether the claims for a seizure and assignment order fall under individual rehabilitation claims listed in the list of creditors (affirmative) where the debtor is ordered to take measures to take by the appellate court and the reappeal is subject to a suspension order under Article 593(1) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act while the reappeal is pending (affirmative)

[2] In a case where an immediate appeal is filed against a claim seizure and assignment order issued by the court of first instance, but the debtor, who was dismissed after filing an appeal to the court of first instance, was ordered to suspend the procedure of a claim seizure and assignment order concerning an individual rehabilitation case under the re-appeal against the dismissal of appeal, the case reversing and returning the order of the court below on the ground that in order to determine whether the re-appeal court will revoke the claim seizure and assignment order and dismiss the application for a seizure and assignment order, it is necessary to examine whether the claim for a claim seizure and assignment order falls under individual rehabilitation claims listed in the creditor list

[1] Articles 589(1)1, 593(1), 600(1), and 615(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act; Articles 229(7) and (8) of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Articles 589(1)1, 593(1), 600(1), and 615(3) of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act; Article 229(7) and (8) of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 9Ma117 and 118 dated August 27, 199 (Gong199Ha, 2160) Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1679 dated January 31, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 280) Supreme Court Order 2009Ma1300 dated September 24, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1961)

Re-appellant

Suwon District Court Order 2010Ra1124 dated December 6, 2010

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Suwon District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The compulsory execution, provisional attachment or provisional disposition procedure, which is already pending on the property belonging to an individual rehabilitation foundation on the basis of individual rehabilitation claims indicated in the creditors list, was temporarily suspended upon the commencement of individual rehabilitation procedures. However, if the repayment plan is authorized, it shall lose its effect unless otherwise prescribed in the decision to authorize the repayment plan or the repayment plan. Therefore, if the individual rehabilitation procedures commence with respect to the debtor under the status that the attachment or assignment order that is issued on the basis of individual rehabilitation claims listed in the creditors list has not yet been finalized after an immediate appeal is filed against such claims, the appellate court shall dismiss an application for the attachment and assignment order after the suspension of a trial on the appeal except in cases where the order of seizure and assignment is revoked for other reasons, on the ground that the seizure and assignment order becomes effective or becomes invalid (see Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1679, Jan. 31, 2008; Supreme Court Order 2007Ma1679, Aug. 17, 1997).

According to the records, the creditor filed an application for the attachment and assignment order of this case on the basis of the authentic authentic copy of a promissory note notarial deed with executory power against the re-appellant as Suwon District Court Branch 2010 other 3271, and the judicial assistant officer of the first instance court accepted the above application on October 6, 2010, and upon the debtor filed an immediate appeal against the above decision, the first instance court approved the above disposition of the judicial assistant on November 18, 2010, and the court below dismissed the re-appellant's appeal on December 6, 2010, while the re-appellant filed a reappeal against the above order to dismiss the appeal, it can be seen that the re-appellant was ordered to suspend the procedure of the attachment and assignment order of the claim of this case on December 14, 2010.

In light of the above legal principles, in order to determine whether the court cancelled the attachment and assignment order of this case and dismissed the application for attachment and assignment order in the above facts, it is necessary to examine whether the claim claims of this case in the attachment and assignment order of this case constitute individual rehabilitation claims listed in the creditor list of the above individual rehabilitation procedure against the re-appellant.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yang Chang-soo (Presiding Justice)