Where a garnishee has an opposing claim against a garnishee of provisional seizure, the requirements capable of setting-off against the creditor of provisional seizure.

Where a garnishee under an order of provisional seizure has a opposing claim against a garnishee of provisional seizure, and where both claims are set-off at the time of entry into force of provisional seizure, or where the opposing claim has not yet arrived at the time of provisional seizure, it shall be the case where the maturity of the passive claim, which is the seized claim, arrives at the time of or higher than the maturity of the provisional seizure.

Articles 492 and 498 of the Civil Act

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Plaintiff 1 and 1 other (Law No. 687, Jun. 2, 1982)

Limited Partnership Company Biberian wounded Persons

Seoul Trust Bank, Inc.

Seoul Civil History District Court (83 Gohap1305)

The appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The original judgment shall be revoked.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 5,00,000 with an interest rate of 6% per annum from the day from the day after the service of this case to the day after the completion of the service.

The costs of lawsuit shall be assessed against the defendant in both the first and second trials and a declaration of provisional execution.

Plaintiff: (a) On August 15, 1982, the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional seizure of claim amounting to KRW 5,000,000,000 from the face value 5,00,000,000,000,000,000,000 issued on August 10, 1982 against the Defendant; and (b) received a ruling of provisional seizure of claim amounting to KRW 5,00,00,00,00 deposited in the separate deposit account of the Defendant Bank on October 15, 1982 from the Seoul District Court Branch Branch Branch 82Ka12945, which was the same court on February 18, 1983; and (c) received on February 19, 1983, the attachment and order of claim transfer from the provisional seizure of claim to the Defendant who is the garnishee on February 19, 1982.

On June 15, 1982, the plaintiff asserted that the above claim for repayment against the non-party 1 was retroactively extinguished due to set-off on an equal amount with the defendant's loan claim against the non-party 1 who reached the due date for payment. Thus, the defendant's claim for repayment against the non-party 1 was examined. The non-party 1's certificate No. 1-2, 2-2, 3-2, 3-4, 4-1, 2 (Notice of Seoul Exchange of Bills), and the above witness's testimony on an equal amount of the above claim, and the defendant's claim for repayment against the non-party 15,000,000 won was returned to the non-party 1 who reached the due date for payment, and even before the due date for payment, the non-party 2 had the above claim for set-off against the non-party 1's above set-off claim against the non-party 1,000 won, and thus, the defendant agreed to set-off the above claim against the non-party 2.

The plaintiff asserted that the separate deposit amounting to KRW 5,00,00,000, which is held by the non-party Jeong Jong-hun, is deposited with the defendant bank as a collateral until the loss of the bill, theft, and the acceptance of the bill at issue at the time of the submission of an accident involving the loss of the bill, and the loss of the bill. Thus, even if the defendant bank has a separate loan claim against the non-party Jong-hun, the above separate deposit return claim cannot be set-off without the involvement of the plaintiff who is the holder of the provisional attachment and the non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party non-party's non-party non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's non-party's claim.

Therefore, the above assignment order of the plaintiff is valid because the above assignment order of the plaintiff is not valid because it does not have all the part of the claim. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking payment of the whole amount is without merit under the premise that the assignment order of the above assignment order is valid. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below with the same conclusion is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the

Judges Kim Yong-han (Presiding Judge)