(a) The time when an assignment order on a claim that contains an uncertain element on the determination of the future claim amount takes effect;

(b) When it is judged whether an assignment order becomes null and void due to the competition of attachment, in cases where there is an assignment order in the state that the attachment of a future uncertain claim overlaps;

A. When an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, the seized claim is naturally transferred to the obligee within the scope of the execution claim retrospectively from the time when it was served on the garnishee, and simultaneously becomes effective when the execution claim is extinguished. Thus, if the assignment order does not coincide with the seizure at the time when it was served on the garnishee, the seizure of the subsequent claim cannot affect the validity of the assignment order, and such change is not possible on the ground that the seized claim contains an uncertain element in the specific determination of the future claim amount, such as the claim for the construction contract before the completion of the construction work.

B. As long as an assignment order is interpreted at the same time when the assignment order was served on the garnishee rather than the future bond settlement price, inasmuch as an assignment order is interpreted as being effective on the claim for the construction work before the completion of construction in which an uncertain element is included in the determination of the amount of the claim, the issue of whether the assignment order becomes null and void due to competition in the case where there is a person who first received the attachment order and received the attachment order, shall not be determined based on the amount of the claim for which the assignment order was served on the garnishee, but on the basis of the amount of the contractual bond

(b)Articles 563 and 564 of the Civil Procedure Act;

A. Supreme Court Order 84Ma13 dated June 26, 1984 (Gong1984, 1420)

Geum River, Inc.

Korea Electric Power Corporation (Attorney Kim Sung-soo et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 94Na22346 delivered on December 13, 1994

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The lower court determined that: (a) on June 5, 1992, the Plaintiff’s assignment order was lawfully cancelled on December 11, 1993; (b) the Defendant’s obligation to pay the non-party company 2 to the non-party 3 was 2,960,418,00 won; and (c) the amount of the construction contract that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were assigned with the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 3’s order of provisional attachment; and (d) the amount of the construction contract that the non-party 1 and the non-party 2 were assigned with the above non-party 1 to the above non-party 3’s order of provisional attachment on the condition that the construction contract would be paid in installments; and (e) the non-party 1 and the non-party 3’s order of attachment on the non-party 2’s claim amount was 40,631,065,000 won less than the above amount of the construction contract price payable to the non-party 1 and 238.

When an assignment order becomes final and conclusive, the claims subject to attachment are naturally transferred to all creditors within the scope of execution claims retroactively from the time when the assignment order was served on the garnishee and simultaneously becomes effective. Thus, if the assignment order does not compete with the third obligor as of the time when the assignment order is served on the third obligor, the subsequent seizure order cannot affect the validity of the above assignment order. Such objection shall not be changed with the inclusion of an uncertain element in the detailed determination of the future claim, such as the claim for the construction cost before the completion of the construction work (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 84Ma13, Jun. 26, 1984). Thus, inasmuch as the assignment order becomes effective when the assignment order was served on the third obligor rather than the time when the assignment order was served on the third obligor, the decision of the court below on the premise that the assignment order becomes void at the time of the final and conclusive should not be based on the premise that the assignment order becomes invalid, but on the premise that the assignment order becomes invalid.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jeong Jong-ho (Presiding Justice)