[1] Whether substantial grounds such as the extinguishment of an execution bond constitute a legitimate ground for appeal against an order to seize and assign claims based on the execution bond (negative)

[2] In a case where an appeal against a claim attachment and assignment order is filed and a creditor’s receipt is attached to a written reason for appeal, whether the appeal contains the purport of claiming it as a certificate of repayment receipt under Article 510 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act and making the submission of the document as a reason for appeal (affirmative)

[1] Although an immediate appeal may be filed against a judgment on the application for a seizure and assignment order of claims, the substantive grounds such as the extinguishment of an executory claim by payment, etc. do not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal.

[2] In a case where an immediate appeal is filed on the ground that the documents under Article 510 subparag. 2 or 4 of the Civil Procedure Act were submitted after an assignment order of claims was issued, the appellate court shall suspend the judgment on the appeal except in a case where the order is revoked for any other reason. In a case where the appellant files an appeal and the appellant appends two copies of receipts prepared by the obligee, the appeal shall be deemed to include the purport that even if not specified in the grounds for appeal, it shall be asserted as a certificate of repayment receipt under Article 510 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the submission of

[1] Articles 561(4) and 563(6) of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Articles 510 subparag. 4 and 563(8) of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 92Ma213 dated April 15, 1992 (Gong1992, 1816), Supreme Court Order 94Ma1681, 1682 dated November 10, 1994 (Gong1995Sang, 36), Supreme Court Order 95Ma601, 602 dated November 25, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 42)

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1 and 2 others (Attorney Park Il-young, Counsel for defendant-appellee)

Daegu District Court Order 96Ra11, 112 dated January 20, 1997

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

An immediate appeal may be raised against a judgment on the application for a seizure and assignment order (Articles 561(4) and 563(6) of the Civil Procedure Act). However, the substantive reasons such as the extinguishment of enforcement bonds by payment, etc. are not legitimate grounds for appeal (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 9Ma542, 94Ma543, May 13, 1994; Order 94Ma1681, 94Ma1682, Nov. 10, 1994; Order 95Ma601, 602, Nov. 25, 1996).

The court below dismissed the appeal of the Re-Appellant on the ground that even if the execution bond of this case had already been extinguished, the validity of the above execution bond seizure and assignment order does not affect the execution bond of this case, since the execution bond of this case was extinguished, since the execution bond of this case was transferred to the execution creditor within the scope of execution bond of this case by using the executory title of the debt, 95Da45460 delivered on June 28, 196, and 76Da626 delivered on May 25, 1976. The court below rejected the appeal of this case on the ground that since the execution bond of this case was extinguished, the claim of the appellant cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal of this case since Articles 561 and 563 of the Civil Procedure Act cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal of this case since all of the above decisions are applicable to the case before amendment by Act No. 4201 delivered on January 13, 190.

Meanwhile, in a case where an immediate appeal is filed on the ground that the documents as stipulated in Article 510 subparag. 2 or 4 of the Civil Procedure Act were submitted after the assignment order of claims was issued, the appellate court shall suspend the trial except for the case where the order is revoked for any other reason (Article 563(8) of the Civil Procedure Act). According to the records, since the re-appellant filed an appeal and attached two copies of receipts prepared by the creditor while filing an appeal, it can be viewed that the purport of the submission of documents is included in the grounds for appeal, which is alleged as the repayment receipt certificate as stipulated in Article 510 subparag. 4 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the purport of the submission of documents is considered as the grounds for appeal. The court below did not make any judgment on this point. However, according to the records, the amount of the claim for the seizure and assignment order of claims of this case is unlawful. Thus, the above receipts are obviously the remaining amount of claims after deducting the amount of the above receipt submitted by the re-appellant from the amount of claims under the name of the above compulsory execution.

In the end, the court below is just and there is no error of law such as misapprehension of legal principles as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)