Whether the garnishee is exempted from liability by deposit, in case where, within the original sense, multiple seizure orders against the same claim cannot be deemed a concurrent seizure, there are objective circumstances making it difficult for the garnishee to judge the concurrent seizure of the same claim (affirmative)

In a case where multiple seizure orders are issued against the same claim, in which the original meaning of the seizure cannot be seen as concurrent seizure because the total amount of the seizure does not exceed the amount of the seized claim due to the legal nature of the seizure, in case where there are objective circumstances deemed difficult to determine whether there exists concurrent seizure from the standpoint of the third obligor, the provision of Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where it is reasonable to recognize the right to deposit the obligation with the third obligor. In this case, the deposit made by the third obligor is formally an execution deposit but has the nature of the repayment deposit in the relationship with the obligor, so the third obligor shall be exempted from liability by the deposit.

Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 487 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 96Da5179 delivered on June 14, 1996 (Gong1996Ha, 2176), Supreme Court Decision 95Ma252 delivered on November 11, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 718), Supreme Court Decision 98Da31905 delivered on October 20, 198 (Gong198Ha, 2683)

Plaintiff (Attorney Jeon Jong-ho, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Attorney Seo-young et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu District Court Decision 98Na12278 delivered on June 2, 1999

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

Where multiple seizure orders are issued against the same claim, in the original sense of the nature of the seizure, even if the total amount of the seizure does not exceed the amount of the seized claim, and it is difficult to determine whether there exists competition in the seizure from the standpoint of the third debtor, in view of the situation where it is difficult to judge from the standpoint of the third debtor, the provisions of Article 581(1) of the Civil Procedure Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case where it is reasonable to recognize the right to deposit the amount of the obligation to the third debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 96Da5179, Jun. 14, 1996; 98Da31905, Oct. 20, 198). In such case, the deposit made by the third debtor is a formal execution, but it has the nature of the repayment deposit in relation to the debtor, and thus, the third debtor is exempted from the obligation.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the provisional seizure order of this case and the seizure and assignment order of claims against the deceased non-party 2 on the premise that the plaintiff and the non-party 1 jointly succeeded to the claims for the refund of the lease deposit of this case against the defendant of the deceased non-party 2 was null and void only in the part where the plaintiff and the non-party 1 jointly succeeded, and therefore, there cannot be a concurrence of seizure of the original meaning of the claims for the refund of the lease deposit of this case. However, it is difficult for the defendant, who is not a legal expert, to regard the non-party 1 as disqualified, as the non-party 1 as the heir, and calculates the invalid portion of the provisional seizure order of this case and the assignment order of claims and the assignment order of claims, and therefore, it is difficult to expect that there is no competition between the defendant and the defendant at the time of the deposit of this case, and therefore, it is difficult to judge whether there was competition between the defendant at the time of the deposit of this case, within the scope of 28,867,320 won.

In light of the records and the above legal principles, we affirm the above determination by the court below, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles on the extinguishment of obligation due to an execution deposit or incomplete deliberation. The ground of appeal is merely an independent opinion that the effect of exemption from liability due to deposit does not accrue if the garnishee becomes aware of the fact that the deposit was made before the completion of the distribution procedure after the deposit and the completion of the distribution procedure. The grounds of appeal are without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff who is the appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-woo (Presiding Justice)