logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2014.08.20 2014다19059
대여금
Text

The judgment below

The part against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. As to the fifth ground for appeal

(a) If there exists a seizure and collection order against the claim, only the collection obligee may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee, and the debtor shall lose the standing to file a lawsuit for performance against the seized claim;

In addition, such matters concerning the standing to be a party are related to the requirements of litigation, and the court shall ex officio investigate and determine them based on the time of the closing of arguments in the fact-finding court. Although the parties did not assert them by the time of the closing of arguments in the fact-finding court,

(See Supreme Court Decision 2007Da60417 Decided September 25, 2008, etc.). B.

According to the allegations in the grounds of appeal and the record, the plaintiff sought against the defendant a loan and its delay damages as of April 5, 2007. However, the defendant asserted that the plaintiff's creditor was issued a seizure and collection order concerning the principal and interest of the above loan before the closing of argument in the court of final appeal, and the plaintiff also affixed such a seizure and collection order (U.S. District Court 2013TTT 11441).

Examining the facts in light of the aforementioned legal principles, if the seizure and collection order on the instant loan and its delayed damages claim were to be served on the Defendant, the Plaintiff is deemed to lose the standing to institute a suit for performance, since only the collection obligee can file a suit for performance of the above loan and its delayed damages claim.

If so, the original court examines ex officio the existence and validity of the seizure and collection order as to the loan of this case and its claim for delay damages, and seizes and seizes the lawsuit of this case.

arrow