(a) If a creditor who has the right of subrogation based on the right of collateral security files an application for the attachment and assignment order of the claim to exercise the right of subrogation (negative);

(b)Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act requires that the compensation be seized prior to the payment, if the object of the security right is expropriated, as a requirement for exercising the security right in question;

C. Whether payment under the proviso of Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act may be made if a business operator deposits for the payment of compensation in land expropriation (negative)

A. In order for a creditor who has a subrogation right based on the right to collateral security to obtain a preferential repayment by exercising the subrogation right, the method of exercising the right can apply mutatis mutandis to the compulsory execution procedure against the claim pursuant to Article 733 of the Civil Procedure Act. However, since it is a procedure for exercising the right to collateral security, it is necessary to submit documents proving the existence of the right to collateral security as a requirement, and it does not require a name of debt because it is not a compulsory execution as a general creditor.

(b)Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act requires that the compensation be seized prior to its payment, if the object of the security right is accepted, as a requirement to exercise the security right on the compensation, is to recognize the preferential payment right to the extent that the specific nature is maintained, i.e., until the compensation is mixed with the owner's general property;

C. Even if a public project operator deposits for the payment of compensation in land expropriation, it cannot be said that there was a payment under the proviso of Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act until this deposit is paid out and it is mixed with the general property of the owners of real estate subject to expropriation. This is a separate issue from the effect of the payment of compensation.

(a) Article 733 of the Civil Procedure Act. Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act

A. Supreme Court Decision 90Meu24816 Decided December 26, 1990 (Gong1991, 628)

Appellant 1 et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant-appellants et al.

Seoul Central District Court Order 92Ra4,5 dated April 9, 1992

All reappeals are dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

On the first ground for appeal

1. According to the facts established by the court below, on February 23, 1990, the non-party Yangyang Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party company) issued one promissory note of KRW 300,00,000 at face value to the non-party creditor of this case. The non-party joint and several 200,000 won among them are jointly and severally guaranteed by the non-party, and as to the non-party's joint and several 210,000,000 square meters (the forest of this case as in this case) owned by the re-appellant, the creditor and joint mortgagee were the non-party, the debtor company, the company, the maximum debt amount was set at KRW 20,00,000, and the Korea Land Development Corporation accepted the forest of this case and deposited the above 140,101,280 won in the name of the non-party to this case as the non-party's owner of the deposited forest of this case as the non-party's owner of this case.

2. If so, the non-party creditor can obtain preferential payment by exercising the subrogation right as long as the above compensation to be received by the re-appellant, which is a modified object of the forest of this case, maintains a specific nature. The non-party creditor can apply for the seizure of the claim and the order in whole by applying mutatis mutandis the compulsory execution procedure against the claim pursuant to Article 733 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, since it is a procedure to enforce a security right, it is required to submit documents proving the existence of a security right as a requirement and start up (see Supreme Court Decision 90Meu24816, Dec. 26, 1990). Since it is not a compulsory execution as a general creditor, it is not necessary to name of debt.

3. Therefore, it cannot be deemed unlawful to issue the attachment and assignment order of this case without the non-party's name of debt, and there is no reason to discuss this issue.

On the second ground for appeal

1. If Article 69 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that the object of the security right is expropriated, the reason why it is required to seize the compensation before the payment is made shall be that the right to preferential payment should be recognized to the extent that the specific nature is maintained, that is, until the compensation is mixed with the general property of the owner.

2. Therefore, even if the Land Development Corporation deposited the payment of compensation as above, it cannot be said that there was a payment prescribed in the proviso of Article 69 of the same Act until this deposit is paid out, and it is a separate issue from the effect of the repayment of compensation.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no ground for discussion.

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

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)