(a) The validity of an order of seizure and assignment where the whole amount of claims are under future condition or are likely to be extinguished;

(b) If seizure as set forth in Article 2 has been effected with respect to the right to claim for recovery of the deposit entirely deposited prior to the revocation of security, a copy of the first creditor's deposit.

A. As long as an attachment and assignment order of a claim is duly made based on an executory title of debt, the seized claim is considered to have been transferred to the obligee within the scope of the executory claim and the obligor is deemed to have discharged the obligation within the scope of the executory claim, regardless of the process of collecting the claim by the obligee who received the attachment and assignment order, and compulsory execution has already been completed. Therefore, even if the executory claim is a future conditional claim or may be extinguished, the effect of the attachment and assignment order of the claim does not affect the future. Accordingly, the attachment and assignment order for the same claim issued thereafter shall be null and void.

B. In the attachment and assignment order of the depositor's right to claim the deposit, the right to claim the deposit can only be realized only when the security is revoked. However, since the effect of the assignment order does not affect the creditor's repayment as the effect of the creditor's repayment, even if the second claim attachment and assignment order was issued before the security is revoked, this becomes null and void. Thus, the first creditor's right to claim the deposit of all creditor is justified.

A.B. Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 489 of the Civil Code

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 83Ma1371 dated December 23, 1983

The order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Southern Branch of Seoul District Court.

The Re-Appellant's ground for reappeal is examined.

As long as an order of seizure and assignment based on the name of executory obligation has been duly issued, a seized claim shall be considered to have been transferred to the creditor within the scope of the executory obligation and the obligor has discharged the obligation, regardless of the process of collecting the obligation by the creditor who received the attachment and assignment order, and compulsory execution is already terminated. Thus, even if the executory obligation is future conditional claim or is likely to be extinguished, the validity of the attachment and assignment order of the claim shall not be affected (see Supreme Court Decisions 76Da626, May 25, 1976; 80Ma131, July 4, 1980). Accordingly, the attachment and assignment order aimed at the same claim after the issuance shall be null and void. In this case, upon receiving the order of permission of the original decision, non-appellant 1 deposited 1.4 million won as security in subrogation of the obligee who received the order of permission of the auction on December 13, 198 and the obligee received the order of the entire immediate appeal on the same 14.14.281,2198.

Therefore, the Re-Appellant is a lawful obligee who received the attachment and assignment order of the claim of this case. Even if the entire claim became the object of the security, the obligor will be deemed to have discharged the obligation in full as long as it was done without loss of the security right, and if the secured obligee does not receive the repayment of the entire claim due to the exercise of the security right holder's right and the claim is cancelled due to extinguishment of the cause of deposit, etc., even if the claim can be realized, the validity of the assignment order as the validity of the claim of this case is valid unless there is a legitimate attachment and assignment order as to the claim of this case. For the same reason, the attachment and assignment order of the second claim of this case is valid without necessity before and after the decision of cancellation of the security right, and as long as the claim of the deposited claim of this case was cancelled, the claim of the Re-Appellant shall be accepted unless the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the claim of collection and assignment order of the deposited claim of this case and the assignment order of the deposited claim of this case becomes effective before the obligee's claim of this case becomes invalid.

Therefore, the original decision is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kang Young-young (Presiding Justice)