(a) The validity of an assignment order where, with respect to a claim that was transferred to another party at the time of delivery of an assignment order, the assignment order is cancelled thereafter;

(b) The validity of an assignment order as to an additional claim based on an additional construction contract concluded after the issuance of an attachment and assignment order of the construction deposit;

A. The entire claim at the time of the delivery of the attachment and assignment order was already transferred by meeting the requisite to set up against the third party, and even if the assignment contract was cancelled after the above assignment order was served and the claim was returned to the original creditor, the above assignment order is not entirely effective against the execution creditor.

(b) No attachment and assignment order on a bond for construction works shall extend to the claim for additional construction works under an additional construction contract concluded after the delivery thereof;

Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da142 Delivered on April 27, 1965

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

The head of the Dong Busan District Tax Office and five others

Daegu High Court Decision 79Gu39 delivered on August 30, 1980

1. The part of the original judgment against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

2. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

3. The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the defendant.

1. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal.

With respect to No. 1:

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below held that the plaintiff was the business transferee as provided in Article 41 of the Framework Act on National Taxes since the plaintiff comprehensively acquired the business of Obak Construction Co., Ltd.., and in light of the records, the above judgment of the court below is justified, and there is no misapprehension of legal principles as to the business transferee such as theory

With respect to the second ground:

The judgment of the court below is reasonable. The above non-party 1 and the non-party 4 company's remaining assets of 197.2.2.2.2. 5 of 197 and the above non-party 2's remaining assets of 197.2. 5 of 197. 8 of 197. 4 and the above non-party 2's remaining assets were disposed of to 3,16,000 won. The above non-party 1 and the non-party 2's remaining assets were disposed of to 197. 5 of 197. 8 of 197. 197. 26 of 197. 4 of 197. 7 of 197. 9 of 197. 4 of 197. 2 of 1978. 4 of 1978. 24 of 1987 of 1977. 27 of this case's remaining assets were disposed to the above non-party 1 and the above non-party 2.

In light of the above, the assignment order cannot be deemed to have its effect until the above assigned claim, if the whole amount of the claim is valid only when the order was delivered to the third party debtor, and if the whole amount of the claim is not legally transferred upon meeting the requisite to set up against the third party. As seen above, when the above non-party 1 received the above seizure and assignment order on May 8, 1978 and served the above order on Jinyang-gun, which is the third party debtor, with the above seizure and assignment order on May 11, 1978, the total amount of KRW 47,224,00,00 including the above part of the claim, was already transferred to the above non-party union on December 26, 197, and there was no claim under the above above above. Thus, the assignment order cannot be deemed to have effect, and since the above assignment order had already been partially cancelled and paid to the non-party 241,281,241,281, the above additional claim under the above assignment order cannot be viewed to the above non-party 2.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the above assignment order has the effect of the above assignment order up to the above 22,424,181 won, which became the claim of the above non-party company upon the cancellation of the above assignment contract. However, the judgment below held that Jyang-gun paid only the above addition and increased construction money to the above non-party 1 with no debt. Thus, the judgment of the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the assignment of claim and assignment order, and therefore, the part against the plaintiff among the judgment of the court below should not be reversed.

2. The following defendant litigation performers' grounds of appeal are examined.

As seen above, the above attachment and assignment order was issued to the above non-party 1 for the amount of KRW 42,00,00 out of the amount of the construction cost claim 47,224,000 against Jinyang-gun of the above non-party company on May 8, 1978, and the above additional construction cost claim increased shall accrue to the above non-party company on April 18, 1978 and September 1978, respectively, after the above assignment order was issued, the above assignment order cannot affect the above additional and increased construction cost (refer to Supreme Court Decision 65Da142 delivered on April 27, 1965). Accordingly, according to the above assignment order, the above additional and the increased construction cost which did not affect the above assignment order were paid to the above non-party 1 for the above non-party 1, the above non-party company is still 1,000,000 won for the above additional construction cost and the above additional construction cost were collected to the above non-party 160,070 days.

Therefore, the court below's action that deemed the above additional and increased construction deposit claim and the above mid-term claim as the remaining property of the company of the above non-party as of the time of the disposition of this case is justified, and there is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or misunderstanding of facts, such as theory of lawsuit.

3. Therefore, the part of the original judgment against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal by the defendant are assessed against the losing defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating

Justices Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)