Claims subject to a claim attachment and assignment order;

If it is confirmed that there is a claim against a third party debtor, the attachment and assignment order of the debtor can be first deducted from the claim, and even if the remaining claim is not actually confirmed, it can be said that the remaining claim has not

Article 557 of the Civil Procedure Act

G. T. T. T. T. T. T.

Han Han Bank Co., Ltd.

Kim Nam-sik

Seoul High Court Decision 61Hun-Gong76 delivered on June 29, 1961

The original judgment shall be reversed.

The case shall be remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds for the appeal by the plaintiff's attorney are as shown in the written reasons for the appeal attached to the attached Form, and the defendant's answer is as specified in the attached Form.

The judgment of the court below on the grounds of appeal is dismissed on the ground that the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the seizure and assignment order of this case cannot be effective, on the ground that the third debtor's claim on the ground that the third debtor's claim on the ground that the third debtor's claim on the third debtor's claim against the third debtor (the third debtor's claim on the credit payment of the debtor's salt payment and the obligation to return the liquidation money to the debtor at the branch office of the former branch office of the former branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the former branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of the branch office of

However, according to the contents of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, prior to the delivery of the plaintiff's assignment order to the litigants, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff's claim was confirmed that the plaintiff's last Jin-jin received 699 Gannnn (782,880 Gan) at the former Local Government Pool Office (the price therefor) before the assignment order of the plaintiff's claim was served to the litigants. However, even if the third debtor of the above claim attachment and assignment order was issued at the time of the delivery of the above claim attachment and assignment order, the third debtor bank, and the third debtor of the above claim, still received the money from the Pool Pool Pool Pool Pool Pool Pool Pool Po, and the balance of the claim is entirely possible. Thus, the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim on the ground that the plaintiff's assignment order did not occur at the time of delivery of the assignment order or that the amount of the claim was not confirmed, and therefore, it is justified.

The plaintiff's appeal is well-grounded and the defendant's answer is without merit. Therefore, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices who participated in the court below for a new trial.

The two judges of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Ma-won Na-won