Where some execution creditors have obtained a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the collection amount based on the collection order based on part of the seized claim in the condition of seizure competition, the amount to be deposited when the garnishee deposits the execution in order to block the compulsory execution based on the final and conclusive judgment above (=total amount of obligations)

The deposit of a third party obligor under Article 581(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) requires the concurrence of seizure of claims subject to seizure. In this case, the amount to be deposited by the third party obligor pursuant to the provisions of the above Act shall be the total amount of the obligation. This legal principle does not change where the third party obligor executes the execution under the above Act in order to prevent compulsory execution based on the final judgment of the case subject to the claim for collection where the third party obligor claims a collection, in cases where the third party obligor has won a claim for collection after obtaining a collection order after obtaining a part of the seized claims subject to seizure.

Article 581 (1) of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 6626 of Jan. 26, 2002) (Article 248 (1) of the current Civil Execution Act)

Plaintiff

Korea Tech Co., Ltd. (Attorney Yoon-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2001Na55248 delivered on March 29, 2002

The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

1. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below ruled that the plaintiff was sentenced on November 13, 1998 to KRW 5% per annum from August 29, 1998 to November 13, 1998 to KRW 25% per annum from the Seoul Southern District Court 98Kahoho case No. 98 (Case No. 10), and that the plaintiff was also subject to the court's order of KRW 20,000 for the collection of 20,000 to KRW 10,000,000 to KRW 10,000,000 to KRW 10,000,000 to KRW 10,000,000 to be deposited by the defendant and KRW 20,000,000,000 to KRW 30,00,000,000 to be deposited by the creditor of 20,000,000,000.

2. However, the deposit of a third party obligor under Article 581(1) of the former Civil Procedure Act requires the concurrence of seizure against the claims subject to seizure. In this case, the amount to be deposited by the third party obligor pursuant to the above Act shall be the total amount of obligations. This legal doctrine does not change in cases where the third party obligor executes the execution deposit in order to prevent compulsory execution based on the final judgment of the case subject to the collection claim, in cases where some execution creditors have obtained a collection order as to part of the claims subject to seizure, and the winning decision has become final and conclusive after filing a lawsuit for the collection claim.

This is because the deposit for execution stipulated in the above provision is based on the concurrence of seizure and it is recognized that the third debtor has the authority to exempt the obligation by depositing the whole amount of the claim related to the seizure in question without being required to comply with the creditor's request for deposit, collection claim, etc., so the amount of other execution creditors who caused the concurrence of seizure should be considered not only the defendant's seizure claim which is only one of the execution creditors who caused the concurrence of seizure but also the amount of other execution creditors who caused the concurrence of seizure. The fact that the collection order was issued after the concurrence of seizure does not affect the deposit, and even if the collection order was issued only for the part of the seized claim under the condition of the concurrence of seizure, if the deposit is executed for the concurrence of seizure, the deposit is not the whole amount of the seized claim under the condition of seizure, but even if the amount of the deposit is consistent with the principal and interest on the collection amount judgment, it is without any ground to deem that the direct payment of the principal and interest

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the court below should have judged whether the amount deposited by the third party obligor is the full amount of the debt, and then whether the enforcement force of the judgment is excluded. The judgment below which did not reach this point is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the enforcement deposit as stipulated in the above law. The ground of appeal pointing this out has merit.

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 Zwon-won (Presiding Justice)