Seoul High Court-2014-Na2016904 ( November 28, 2014)

It cannot be recognized that there was a notification of seizure of claims following a seizure disposition.

The argument in the grounds of appeal that the defects of the first attachment disposition are not clear, and thus, the first attachment disposition cannot be deemed null and void, or that the interruption of extinctive prescription due to the first attachment disposition takes effect even if there is no claim subject to attachment, even if there is no claim subject to attachment, is based on the premise of the existence

Article 41 (Procedures for Attachment of Claims)

2015Da200432, Demurrer against distribution, 2015Da200449, Demurrer against distribution

○○ Kim et al.

Korea

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na2016904, 2014Na2016911 decided November 28, 2014

May 28, 2015

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

The court below held that the attachment of the claim is not effective on the ground that the attachment order, the only evidence related to the execution of the attachment, did not indicate that the third debtor, the AA Savings Bank, was prohibited from performing the obligation to H distribution, and further, on December 23, 1998, it cannot be acknowledged that there was a notification of the attachment order prohibiting the performance of the obligation to H distribution to the AA Savings Bank, the debtor, pursuant to the first attachment order on December 23, 1998, under the National Tax Collection Act (hereinafter referred to as the "H distribution"), against the AA Savings Bank (the trade name before the modification was a stock company, the AA Credit Credit Depository; hereinafter referred to as the "A Savings Bank").

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the relevant legal principles and records, the judgment of the court below is just and acceptable. Contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there were no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the distribution of the burden of proof of delivery

Furthermore, inasmuch as it cannot be acknowledged that there was a notification of the attachment of claims following the first attachment disposition on December 23, 1998, the first attachment disposition cannot be deemed null and void because the defect of the first attachment disposition is serious and clear, or even if there is no claim subject to attachment, the interruption of extinctive prescription following the first attachment disposition becomes effective, all of the arguments in the grounds of appeal are based on the premise of the existence of the notification of attachment of claims, and thus, it cannot be accepted.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the 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.