(a) The effect of seizure, attached to warehouse walls, and the effect of an auction procedure conducted on the basis thereof, where only a part of the goods of the same kind is seized and the items and quantity are recorded in a package public notice without distinguishing them from each other in a tangible manner;

B. In the case of Paragraph (a) above, whether it can be deemed that the creditor suffered damages equivalent to the successful bid price only on the ground that the auction procedure becomes null and void

C. The effect of the attachment where the mark of the attachment of the article is not clear and the cure of the defect (negative)

A. The seizure of only a part of the goods of the same kind stored in a warehouse is not classified as a type by the type of seizure for the debtor, and the seizure is null and void by attaching a public notice form to the warehouse wall when the items and quantity are entered in a package public notice method. The auction procedure conducted based on this is also null and void.

B. In the case of the above Paragraph (a), if the auction procedure becomes null and void, the repayment of the successful bid price portion has not yet become effective, and as such, the creditor may still claim the remaining claims against the debtor. Thus, barring any special circumstance such as where it is difficult to collect claims against the debtor due to the successful bid, the creditor cannot be deemed to have caused damages equivalent to the successful bid price merely on the ground that the auction procedure becomes null and void.

C. If the owner of the goods seized and keeps the goods in custody of the debtor, it is necessary to clarify the seizure by sealing or by other means to take effect. If the attachment is not clear, the attachment is invalid, and it can be deemed that the attachment belongs to the failure rather than the failure. Therefore, the defect is not cured on the ground that the above defect was later revised and sold by the owner of the goods.

(b)Article 527 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 3 of the State Compensation Act;

No. 200

Korean Intervenor joining the Republic of Korea Intervenor

Seoul Civil District Court Decision 90Na12334, 16435 decided January 18, 1991 (Counterclaim)

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the plaintiff and each defendant.

1. Plaintiff’s ground of appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the plaintiff applied for the seizure of corporeal movables on the basis of the executory exemplification of the non-party Lee Jong-soo, and attached 70 boxes (250 boxes per box 60 boxes) and 70 boxes in a warehouse at the above time of the above auction, and that the plaintiff's agent sold the above 70 boxes in the above auction process, and the above intervenor did not distinguish 70 boxes from the above 70 boxes from the above 70 boxes from the above 150 boxes from the above 150 boxes from the above 70 boxes from the above 70 boxes from the above 70 boxes from the above 70 boxes from the above 70 boxes from the auction process of the above auction process, and the defendant did not attach the 70 boxes to the above 70 boxes from the above 150 boxes from the auction process of the auction procedure and did not list the 70 boxes from the above 70 boxes from the auction process of the auction procedure.

However, since the auction procedure has been invalidated with respect to the above appended 70 boxes, the repayment of the successful bid price portion has not yet become effective, and therefore, the plaintiff can still claim the remainder of the claim against the debtor, and unless there are special circumstances such as the plaintiff's auction that it is difficult to collect claims against the debtor due to the plaintiff's auction, it cannot be said that the plaintiff suffered a considerable loss in the successful bid price merely because the auction against the above 70 boxes was invalidated. Therefore, the court below's decision to the same purport is just and there is no error of law such as incomplete deliberation or misunderstanding of legal principles or lack of reasoning. The argument is without merit.

2. To clarify the seizure of the grounds of appeal by the defendant's performer in cases where the recipient seizes the goods and keeps them in custody of the debtor, it is an effective requirement for the seizure. The seizure in cases where the marking of the seizure is not clear is not only null and void, but also constitutes the failure to establish the seizure. Thus, the defects are not cured even if the above defects were corrected and auctioned later.

In the case of this case, so long as the seizure of the above appended 70 boxes is null and void, the seizure is not converted into valid since the plaintiff acquired the successful bid on the date of auction, and it cannot be said that the plaintiff did not raise any objection without delay even though he knows the defect, and there is gross negligence on the part of the plaintiff.

In addition, the plaintiff's cause of the claim is not the defendant's liability for damages caused by the failure to keep the seized property in custody or the liability for warranty against the object of auction, and even if the debtor is responsible for the effect that he is the debtor, the defendant's liability under the State Compensation Act is not extinguished.

There is no error of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles or lack of reasoning in the judgment of the court below.

All appeals are dismissed and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Yoon Young-young (Presiding Justice) Park Young-dong Kim Jong-ho