[1] In a case where the third party obligor indicated the amount to be paid to the obligor according to the result of the judgment when requesting for the seizure and collection order, whether the seizure and collection order has the effect on the claim, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit (affirmative)

[2] The case holding that in a case where: (a) Company A filed a lawsuit for unjust enrichment return against Company B; (b) the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the obligee for reimbursement against Company B, received a seizure and collection order against Company B, “a claim claim, such as the agreed amount, if the lawsuit is withdrawn due to the claim for rent claim and the agreement that Company A would receive; and (c) thereafter, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund only sought a return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent and the claim for the aforementioned lawsuit was declared final and conclusive on the ground that the claim for unjust enrichment was a party standing; (d) the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund won the lawsuit against Company B, won the lawsuit against Company B; and (e) filed a lawsuit for unjust enrichment return against Company B after the final and conclusive judgment of dismissal, the decision of recommendation of performance became final and conclusive to order payment of unjust enrichment; and (e) the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund filed a lawsuit of demurrer against the sole heir of the deceased Party C in the process of compulsory execution against the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the obligee for collection and seizure of claims, which became effective after the seizure and seizure order

[1] According to the judgment, if the third party obligor indicated the amount to be paid to the obligor as the seized claim, the claim under the substantive law, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, shall be deemed to be subject to the seizure and collection order. Ultimately, the effect of the seizure and collection order received by the obligee, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, shall be deemed to affect the claim, which

[2] When Company A filed a lawsuit for unjust enrichment return against Company B, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the obligee for reimbursement against Company B, received a seizure and collection order under which Company B would receive the claim amount, such as agreement, if the lawsuit is withdrawn due to the claim for rent claim and agreement, from which Company B would receive the claim amount, and thereafter the judgment of rejection became final and conclusive on the ground that the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent was a party standing in the lawsuit above, the Court accepted the lawsuit against Company B and applied for compulsory execution against the movables owned by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund. After the judgment of rejection became final and conclusive, the decision of recommendation order for payment of unjust enrichment was final and conclusive in the lawsuit against Company B, and the distribution schedule was established to pay dividends to Company B in the procedure of the above compulsory execution, and the claim for unjust enrichment return cannot be seen as having been objectively interpreted as having been stated in the judgment of the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund’s claim for collection and the claim for unjust enrichment return as the subject matter of the lawsuit for which Company B would have objectively protected the claim amount and the claim to be seized.

[1] Articles 225, 227, and 232 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 159(1)3 of the Civil Execution Rule / [2] Articles 225, 227, and 232 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 159(1)3 of the Civil Execution Rule

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2010Da40444 Decided April 28, 2011 (Supreme Court Decision 2011Da8295 Decided October 11, 2012)

Korea Credit Guarantee Fund (Law Firm Locom, Attorneys Park Sung-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Defendant

Gwangju District Court Decision 2015Na52196 Decided December 18, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. A. Review of the reasoning of the lower judgment and the record reveals the following facts.

(1) The Unclaimed building industry corporation (hereinafter “unclaimed building”) filed a lawsuit seeking the transfer of land and return of unjust enrichment equivalent to rent (hereinafter “instant lawsuit seeking return of unjust enrichment”) against Nonparty 1, who occupied the relevant land without permission.

(2) The Plaintiff, who is the creditors of the claim for reimbursement of the unclaimed stone, was issued the instant claim seizure and collection order regarding “the claim amount, etc. in the event a lawsuit is withdrawn due to the claim for reimbursement of the stone, claim for reimbursement, and agreement that would be received from Nonparty 1 in the lawsuit claiming the return of unjust enrichment.”

(3) As to the part seeking the payment of the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent in the instant lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment, the first instance court and the appellate court rendered a judgment dismissing the claim in accordance with the main defense of Nonparty 1’s main defense that only the Plaintiff, the collecting authority, has standing to sue, and became final and conclusive August 19, 2010

(4) On June 19, 2012, after the instant lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment was finalized, the building stones transferred the above claim for return of unjust enrichment to Nonparty 2, who was the inheritee of the Defendant.

(5) Nonparty 2 filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 seeking the payment of the claim for return of unjust enrichment received from stone without stone, and confirmed the decision of performance recommendation ordering the payment of 19,790,000 won and damages for delay. Nonparty 1 also filed a lawsuit against Nonparty 1 for the claim for collection of the amount of collection under the seizure and collection order of this case and received a final and conclusive judgment ordering the payment of 34,557,873 won and damages for delay.

(6) In the distribution procedure of the compulsory execution against the movables owned by Nonparty 1, the execution court prepared a distribution schedule stating that the execution court made the decision of the above execution recommendation by Nonparty 2 as the execution title, and distributed KRW 6,062,627 to Nonparty 2. The Plaintiff raised an objection against the whole amount of the above dividends against Nonparty 2 on the date of distribution.

B. On the following grounds, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant cannot oppose the Plaintiff by the transfer of claims after the effect of the seizure and collection order became effective.

(1) It is clear that the claims that Nonparty 2 acquired from the building stones are not included in the scope of seized claims under the language of “the indication of claims to be seized and collected” indicated in the collection order and seizure of the instant claims.

(2) There is insufficient evidence to prove that the Plaintiff seized the claim before Nonparty 2 acquired the claim for return of unjust enrichment from stone without permission.

2. However, the lower court’s determination is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

A. As a result of the judgment, where the third party obligor indicated the amount to be paid to the obligor as the seized claim, the claim under the substantive law, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, shall be deemed to be subject to the seizure and collection order. Ultimately, the effect of the seizure and collection order of the obligee’s claim, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, shall be deemed to affect the claim, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit, and the subject matter of the lawsuit, which is the subject matter of the lawsuit directed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da40444, Apr. 28, 2011; 201Da8299

B. (1) As seen earlier, the first instance court and the appellate court dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the claim for return of unjust enrichment on the premise that the Plaintiff had received lawful seizure and collection order regarding the claim for return of unjust enrichment equivalent to the rent for Nonparty 1 of the building stones, and the judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

After all, the plaintiff filed a claim for collection against the non-party 1 in the position of the collection right holder with respect to the above claim for restitution of unjust enrichment which was rejected, and the record reveals that the claim for collection of unjust enrichment was actually identical to the claim for return of unjust enrichment that the non-party 2 acquired from the building stones.

(2) Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to interpret the Plaintiff’s claims seized through the instant seizure and collection order as unjust enrichment return claims equivalent to the rent for Nonparty 1 of the building stones, which is the object of the instant lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment. Even if the Plaintiff stated the case number of the instant lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment in the “Indication of claims to be seized and collected,” it is intended to specify the seized claim as the cause of claim in the said lawsuit, and its scope is not simply to limit it to the claim of the judgment amount to be actually paid by Nonparty 1 according to the outcome of the said lawsuit.

(3) The main reason for objectively strict interpretation according to the language stated in the “Indication of a claim to be seized” is to protect a third-party obligor who is assigned to a legal dispute between others and is obligated to perform the obligation prescribed in a decision of seizure, etc. (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da26296, Dec. 26, 2013). However, Nonparty 1, a third-party obligor of this case, asserted that in the lawsuit for return of unjust enrichment in this case, the Plaintiff may bring a lawsuit for collection only by receiving a seizure and collection order against the claim for return of unjust enrichment, and thus, it seems that there is no room for confusion or problem with the scope and specification of the claim to be seized from the standpoint of Nonparty 1.

(4) Therefore, the defendant cannot oppose the plaintiff who is the person holding the right to seize and collect the claims by transferring the claims of this case concerning the claims seized after the seizure and collection order became effective.

C. Nevertheless, the lower court’s rejection of the Plaintiff’s claim on the ground that the claim acquired by Nonparty 2 was not included in the scope of claims subject to seizure and collection order of this case, erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the scope and specification of the claims subject to seizure, thereby adversely affecting

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim So-young (Presiding Justice)