In case where an assignment order has been issued, the ground for setting up against the third obligor's whole creditor

In case where an assignment order is issued, the third debtor has the former legal status that was held on the debtor even after the assignment order was issued, and therefore the third debtor may also set up against the third debtor as a ground for setting up against the debtor prior to seizure of the claim.

Article 536 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 68Da895 delivered on July 24, 1968 (Supreme Court Decision 8533Da8533 delivered on July 24, 1968, Supreme Court Decision 162Du1052 delivered on July 16, 199

Plaintiff

Mineyang Group

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (72 Gohap541)

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 1,266,240 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from November 20, 1972 to the date of full payment. The defendant is seeking a declaration of provisional execution to the effect that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

On November 11, 1972, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,266,240 based on an executory protocol of settlement with respect to the non-party Yangyang Company 1,26,240, in order to meet the claim amounting to KRW 1,266,240, the Gwangju District Court 72Da983,984, and ordered the non-party company to seize the claim amounting to KRW 1,26,240, 1,26,240 to the non-party company's defendant Gun, and around that time, the Plaintiff received the attachment order and assignment order of the claim amounting to KRW 1,26,240,00 from the non-party 1,26, and KRW 70,000, KRW 70, KRW 10,570, KRW 70, KRW 107, KRW 97, KRW 106, KRW 75,07, KRW 197, KRW 10,575, and KRW 197.

However, the Plaintiff’s legal representative asserted that the Defendant sought payment of KRW 1,266,240 of the balance of the construction cost against the Defendant to the Dongyang Enterprise Co., Ltd., a full claim against the Defendant, before the assignment order of this case was issued, the Defendant’s legal representative could not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim since the Defendant had already paid the contract amount to the above non-party company. Since the above non-party company was to collect the support cost directly from the beneficiary of this case, even though the Defendant had no liability for payment of load, etc. and there was a defect such as damage of floodgate in the repair work due to the defective construction work of the above Dongyang Enterprise Co., Ltd., a beneficiary, even though there was no liability for the payment of load, so it is argued that the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be

The facts that Defendant Military had already paid KRW 5,349,767 equivalent to military expenses out of the construction cost of this case to Nonparty Dongyang Incorporated Co., Ltd., a beneficiary, before the assignment order was issued. However, in full view of the contents of No. 1, 5-1, 2, 1, and 2-1, 1, and 2-1, 1, and 2-1 of the above evidence No. 1-2, and the whole purport of the party argument,

As part of the farmland improvement project, the Defendant-gun set the construction cost at KRW 5,349,767, as part of the said farmland improvement project, at KRW 1,715,000, the Defendant-gun determined that the construction cost was paid at KRW 5,715,00,000, and that it was recognized that the Defendant-gun entrusted the construction work to the Non-Party East Enterprise Co., Ltd.

The subsidy charges for farmland improvement projects shall be imposed on the business owner to bear part of the expenses incurred in the business (Article 108 of the Rural Modernization Promotion Act), and the business owner shall be liable for the payment of construction expenses to the public, regardless of whether the subsidy charges are collected or not. Thus, the project owner shall bear part of the subsidy charges for the 1,715,000 won for the Dasan Enterprise Co., Ltd. which is the beneficiary of the Dosan Enterprise Co., Ltd., in accordance with the defendant's argument that there was an agreement to directly collect from local residents, the 1,715,00 won for the Dosan Enterprise Co., Ltd. which is the beneficiary of the Dosan Enterprise Co., Ltd., the 1,000, the 1,000,000 won of the 1,000,000 won of the 1,000,000 won of the 1,000 won of the 197,000,000 won of the 17.

Therefore, Defendant Gun may refuse payment of the balance of the construction work until the completion of the repair of the defect in the exhibition. The third debtor in the case where an assignment order was issued has the previous legal status that had been held against the debtor even after the assignment order was issued. As such, the third debtor is entitled to oppose the entire debtor as a ground for defense against the seizure order against the debtor, and as such, the defendant is entitled to oppose the entire debtor. Thus, the defendant can refuse payment of the above construction work against the plaintiff who is the entire creditor of the case, as long as the above company is still in the process of repairing the defect in the statement by the above company, so the defendant's attorney is justified.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of the principal lawsuit, which is based on the premise that the due date of the secured claim has arrived, shall be dismissed. The judgment of the first instance court, which differs from this result, is unfair, and the defendant's appeal is reasonable, and thus the plaintiff's claim is dismissed, and the costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant who lost the head of the first and second instance court.

Judges Park Young-young (Presiding Judge)