Effect of compulsory execution for delivery to a third party's own property

Even if the movable transferred by compulsory execution falls under the possession and possession of a third party, the execution cannot be void as soon as the compulsory execution is completed. Therefore, the ownership and the right of possession cannot be considered to be a third party continuously.

Article 689 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korean Commercial Bank (Attorneys Oh Jeong-dae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Defendant (Attorney Hong-chul et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 71Na2105 delivered on December 8, 1971

The original judgment shall be reversed, and

The case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below, the court below acknowledged that on April 12, 1971 between the applicant ○○○ (the defendant in this case) and the non-party Han wood Industry Company on the ground of accepting the plaintiff's claim for the confirmation of ownership and right of possession of the timber in this case, the respondent's telephone call was established between the respondent ○○○ and the non-party Han wood Industry Co., Ltd. on April 14, 1971 to deliver the timber in the annexed list attached to the original judgment to the applicant by April 14, 1971, and the original copy of the protocol was based on the original copy of the protocol of protocol, and the non-party's claim for the confirmation of ownership and right of possession of the timber in this case (hereinafter referred to as the "the timber in this case") was made without movement, and that the defendant's right of possession and right of possession in this case should not be revoked from the original copy of the original judgment to the plaintiff on the ground that the non-party 1, the applicant of this case's right of possession and right should be revokeded.

However, according to the decision of the court below, the non-party, who belongs to the Seoul Special District Court, was released from possession by the respondent for the timber industry corporation in this case and delivered it again to the defendant who is the applicant. Even if the timber belongs to the plaintiff's ownership and possession, such a reason as the original decision, the plaintiff as the plaintiff raised an objection against the execution method prior to the expiration of the compulsory execution of delivery of the movable property in this case, and the execution of delivery of the timber in this case is not completed as the original sale, so long as the execution of delivery of the timber in this case had already been completed as the original sale, the execution of this case cannot be automatically null and void. Accordingly, although the ownership and right of possession of the timber in this case cannot be viewed as the plaintiff, the court below erred in accepting the plaintiff's claim for confirmation under this dissenting opinion, and it is reversed as the decision of the court below and remanded to the Seoul High Court for a decision as to this case's appeal. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all Justices.

The judge of the Supreme Court of the Republic of Korea (Presiding Judge) Mag-Jak Kim Jong-young Kim Young-ho