The effect of an assignment order among the entire bonds;

The attachment and assignment order on the claim is effective only on the claim actually existing at the time the assignment order is served, and if a part of the amount claimed in the attachment and assignment order cannot take effect on the part of the claim due to the non-existence of the target claim or other reasons, compulsory execution on this part is completed due to non-execution impossibility.

Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Supreme Court Decision 77Da76 decided Feb. 8, 1962 (No. 11520 decided Feb. 8, 1962; Supreme Court Decision 25B citizen 142; Decision No. 564(9) of the Civil Procedure Act No. 10171 decided Feb. 8, 1962)

Plaintiff

Countries

Seoul Central District Court (63 Ghana8717) in the first instance trial

The original judgment shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 135,00 and the amount at the rate of five percent per annum from January 15, 1964 until the repayment is completed.

The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

The total costs of litigation shall be borne equally by the plaintiff and the defendant.

A provisional execution may be effected for paragraph (2).

The plaintiff shall pay to the plaintiff 245,000 won with 5% interest per annum from the day following the completion of the service of making up gushes to the plaintiff.

The judgment that the lawsuit costs should be borne by the defendant and the declaration of provisional execution were sought.

The Defendant revoked the original judgment. The Defendant dismissed the Plaintiff’s claim. The first and second instances filed a judgment that the litigation cost should be borne by the Plaintiff.

In light of the contents stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 1 and 2 and the purport of pleading of non-party 1's testimony of the court below without dispute, non-party 2 corporation entered the contract for construction work between the defendant and the non-party 3 corporation on August 31, 1963 with the second floor among the non-party 1's transportation headquarters reconstruction construction work, the contract amount of up to 1,329,99 won is 135,000 won, and the contract deposit amount cannot be entered into from March 2 of the same year with the non-party 3, the above contract bond amount of 1,329,99 won cannot be transferred to the non-party 3, the non-party 5's counter-party 1's counter-party 3's counter-party 5's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 3's counter-party 5's counter-party 1's counter-party 1's counter-party 3's counter-party 1's counter-6's counter-party 3's counter-party

On the other hand, according to the evidence Nos. 3 and 4, which had no dispute over the establishment of the above assignment order, the non-party company and the defendant on November 8, 199, after the above assignment order was issued, the contract for additional construction work which increases the contract amount to KRW 1,394,965 to the non-party company and the defendant's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party claim that the above assignment order's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party-party company's non-party company's non-party company's non-party claim.

Therefore, the validity of the above assignment order is that only 135,00 won was paid to the non-party company's defendant, and therefore, 135,00 won was legally paid to the plaintiff. In the part of the non-party 1's testimony, the above Corporation can be found to have been completed before December 30, 1963, and barring special circumstances, the defendant is obligated to return the above construction deposit to the plaintiff at the above time. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is 135,000 won as above and the above claim was occurred after the payment was delivered to the defendant, and it is justified to the extent that the non-party company's claim was made at the rate of 5% per annum interest rate, which is the civil law court from January 15, 1964 to the expiration of payment, and the remainder is unfair and dismissed. Thus, with respect to the payment of litigation expenses altered differently from the judgment, Article 89, Article 92, Article 96 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 96 of the provisional execution Act are applied.

Judges Kim Young-ju (Presiding Justice)