Where a claim is cancelled after seizure or provisional seizure competitiond at the time of an assignment order, and the validity of an assignment order;

Since the assignment order was issued in competition with the provisional seizure on the entire claim, it would be valid, and it cannot be said that the effect of the assignment order is retroactively restored because it was cancelled after the provisional seizure on the claim which was competition at the time of the assignment order.

Plaintiff

Defendant

Seoul District Court's Northern Branch (81Gahap386)

The plaintiff's 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 4,580,000 won with an amount of 25 percent per annum from the following day from the day of service to the day of full payment.

The judgment of both the first and second courts that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution

The non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party") has a right to claim the return of deposit money of KRW 5,00,000 in total among the 1st store of April 1, 1980 between the 1st store of 19, 1980 and the 1st store of 28th store of 19,000 in Seoul, Dongdaemun-gu, Seoul, the defendant owned by the defendant, and the non-party 1 (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party 1") against the defendant, based on the executory payment order for loans of the above non-party 81,686,687 in Seoul, the same court as the defendant on February 26, 1981 based on the executory payment order for the loans of the above non-party 81,686,687, and the non-party 1 as the debtor of the above 3 debtor and the defendant was not subject to dispute over the claim seizure and assignment order of KRW 4,580,000 among the above deposit.

The plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the payment of the full amount of the deposit and the damages for its delay. The defendant asserted that the assignment order of this case was invalid since the non-party 2 was made in competition with the provisional seizure order of the claim against the non-party 2 on the right to claim the return of the deposit money as Seoul Civil District Court 86Ka46991 as to the right to claim the return of the deposit money. Thus, it cannot be acknowledged that the provisional seizure order of this case was issued 3,349,50 won among the deposit money of this case by the non-party 2 on December 30, 1980, before the assignment order of this case was issued as the non-party 2 as the debtor and the non-party 2's testimony and arguments. Thus, the provisional seizure order of this case cannot be acknowledged as valid since the provisional seizure and the provisional seizure order of this case were issued under the competition of this case.

The plaintiff's decision on provisional seizure against the above claim is indicated as the third debtor (name omitted), and it cannot be viewed as the decision against the defendant in this case. Thus, the plaintiff's above argument is asserted that there is no competition between claims against the security deposit in this case and the provisional seizure against the above security deposit at the time of the assignment order. Accordingly, according to each of the above evidence, the third debtor's address is identical to the defendant's address. However, the third debtor's address is identical to the defendant's address, and the defendant uses the above name as mentioned above, and the above provisional seizure claim is recognized as identical to the assignment order. Furthermore, since the defendant is the same person in this case's decision on provisional seizure against the above claim, it is recognized that the defendant is the same person in this case's (name omitted) under the provisional seizure order against the above claim.

Then, on August 24, 1981, the plaintiff filed an application for cancellation of the provisional attachment order of the above claim on August 24, 1981, which was the original judgment, and on September 1, 1981, the application for cancellation was served on the defendant, who is the garnishee, and thus, the assignment order of this case was retroactively valid, but it cannot be said that the effect of the assignment order, which was null and void, was retroactively restored because the seizure or provisional attachment which was competition at the time of the assignment order, was cancelled thereafter (as long as the attachment of the plaintiff is valid, it can be newly issued an assignment order or collection order). Thus, the plaintiff'

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for objection based on the premise that the assignment order of this case is valid shall be dismissed as there is no need to further determine the remainder of the defendant's defense, and the original judgment is just and without merit, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition with the burden of the losing plaintiff.

Judges Yoon Sang-ho (Presiding Judge)