A. Whether a performance takes effect according to an assignment order that is not confirmed under the current Civil Procedure Act and a compulsory execution procedure is terminated (negative)

(b) The requirements to be examined by the court in making a decision on the seizure and assignment order of claims, and whether the debtor himself/herself is dissatisfied with the ground that there is no claim subject to the seizure and assignment order against a third party debtor (negative)

A. Unlike Articles 561 and 563 of the current Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 1990), Articles 561 and 563 of the former Civil Procedure Act provide that an immediate appeal may be filed against a judgment on the application for a seizure and assignment order of monetary claims, and that an assignment order shall be effective when the assignment order is finalized, and Article 564 of the same Act provides that an obligor shall be deemed to have discharged the obligation when the assignment order is delivered to the third obligor. Thus, the effect of performance by an undetermined assignment order shall accrue and the compulsory execution procedure shall not be terminated.

B. The attachment and assignment order of a claim is a compulsory execution against a creditor who has the title of debt of a monetary claim and against a monetary claim held by a debtor against a third debtor under his/her title. In determining the attachment and assignment order, the court must examine the requirements such as the delivery of the title of debt, the existence of the preceding seizure order, and the existence of the preceding seizure order. In principle, it is not necessary to judge whether the debtor has a claim against a third debtor. If there is no claim against the third debtor, the assignment order is valid even if the assignment order is finalized, and even if the debtor does not have such claim against the third debtor, the repayment is not effective, unless there are any special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be viewed as a ground for objection on this ground.

Articles 561, 563, and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Judgment of the court below]

Gwangju District Court Order 92Ra2 dated February 13, 1992

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the records, the attachment and assignment order of this case is an assignment order of 50,00,000 won out of the obligor's deposit withdrawal claim against the obligor's third obligor who deposited with the obligor No. 131 on January 15, 1992 against the obligee's third obligor (re-appellant) at the obligee's request. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the second obligee's assignment order of this case against the obligor's third obligor's third obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligor's second obligee's second obligee's third obligor's third obligor's second obligee's second.

2. Articles 561 and 563 of the current Civil Procedure Act provide that an immediate appeal may be filed against a judgment on a request for seizure and assignment order of monetary claims, contrary to the former Civil Procedure Act, and Article 561 and 563 of the same Act provides that an assignment order shall be effective, and Article 564 of the same Act provides that an obligor shall be deemed to have discharged the obligation upon the delivery of the assignment order to the third obligor in the event that the assignment order becomes final and conclusive. Therefore, the performance becomes effective by the final and conclusive assignment order and the compulsory execution procedure is not terminated, and therefore, the reasoning of the lower court’s reasoning is inappropriate.

3. However, the attachment and assignment order of a claim is a compulsory execution against a creditor who has the title of debt of a monetary claim against a third debtor under his/her title, and the court examines the requirements such as delivery of the title of debt, the existence of the preceding seizure order, the existence of the preceding seizure order, and the existence of the preceding non-conformity, etc. in determining the attachment and assignment order. In principle, it is not necessary to judge whether a debtor has a claim against a third debtor. If there is no such claim against a third debtor, the performance is not effective even if the assignment order is finalized, and even if the debtor does not have such claim against the third debtor, it is not a disadvantage for this reason, barring any special circumstances. Thus, it cannot be viewed that the debtor's own objection is not a ground for appeal.

In addition, according to the records, the address of the person who is entitled to receive deposited goods is the name of the re-appellant in the deposit form (Records 113 pages) of Gwangju District Court 92-year 131 (Records 113 pages). Thus, unlike how the internal relationship between the re-appellant and the above company is established, the creditor who claims the return of deposit money for repayment against Korea is the re-appellant, and even if so, there is no reason to discuss the re-appellant's appeal.

Therefore, the court below's dismissal of the appeal by the re-appellant is just and without merit.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)