Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Attachment cancellation, assignment of the claim, and later attachment
Supreme Court, Jan. 27, 2022, 2017Da256378 (judgment)
Case name: 추심금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where the enforcement court served on the third debtor a notice cancelling execution of an attachment of a claim, and an assignee acquired that claim while the attachment decision was still served on the third debtor and met the requirements for opposing an assignment by a date-certain notice, may the assignee assert its unencumbered acquisition against the attaching creditor, and does that remain so if the attachment cancellation decision was later annulled on appeal and the attachment confirmed?
Holding
Yes, in both situations. Once the notice cancelling execution of the attachment was served on the third debtor, its effect was conclusive, so the assignee, who acquired the claim while the attachment decision was served on the third debtor and met the requirements for opposing an assignment by a date-certain notice, could assert acquisition free of the attachment against the attaching creditor. That remains so even though the attachment cancellation decision was later annulled on appeal and the attachment confirmed, because a cancelled execution does not revive retroactively; and a later attachment or garnishment by another creditor of the debtor is ineffective, because at that time the attached claim no longer exists.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
채권가압류취소결정의 집행으로서 집행법원이 제3채무자에게 가압류집행취소통지서를 송달한 경우 그 효력은 확정적이므로, 채권가압류결정이 제3채무자에게 송달된 상태에서 그 채권을 양수하여 확정일자 있는 통지 등에 의한 대항요건을 갖춘 채권양수인은 위와 같이 가압류집행취소통지서가 제3채무자에게 송달된 이후에는 더 이상 처분금지효의 제한을 받지 않고 아무런 부담이 없는 채권 취득의 효력을 가압류채권자에게 대항할 수 있게 된다.
Unofficial English translation
Where the enforcement court serves on the third-party debtor a notice of cancellation of provisional attachment execution as enforcement of a decision cancelling a provisional attachment of a claim, the effect thereof is final; accordingly, a transferee of the claim who, while the provisional attachment decision had been served on the third-party debtor, acquired the claim and satisfied the opposability requirement by means of a notice bearing a fixed date, becomes able, after such notice of cancellation of provisional attachment execution has been served on the third-party debtor, to no longer be subject to the restriction of the effect prohibiting disposition, and to assert against the attaching creditor the effect of the acquisition of the claim free of any burden.
Disposition
Dismissed Stated in the decision
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
그 후 채무자의 다른 채권자가 양도된 채권에 대하여 압류 또는 가압류를 하더라도 압류 또는 가압류 당시에 피압류채권은 이미 존재하지 않는 것과 같아 압류 또는 가압류로서의 효력이 없다.
Unofficial English translation
Even if the debtor's other creditor thereafter places an attachment or provisional attachment on the assigned claim, as at the time of the attachment or provisional attachment the attached claim is already as if it did not exist, the attachment or provisional attachment has no effect as such.
Factors
- 채권가압류결정이 제3채무자에게 송달된 상태에서 그 채권을 양수하여 확정일자 있는 통지 등에 의한 대항요건을 갖춘 채권양수인은
- 가압류집행취소통지서가 제3채무자에게 송달된 이후에는 더 이상 처분금지효의 제한을 받지 않고
- 이미 취소된 가압류집행이 소급하여 부활하는 것은 아니므로
- 확정일자 있는 통지 등에 의한 채권양도의 대항요건을 갖추었다면
- 압류 또는 가압류 당시에 피압류채권은 이미 존재하지 않는 것과 같아 압류 또는 가압류로서의 효력이 없다.
Unofficial English translation
• A transferee of the claim who, while the provisional attachment decision had been served on the third-party debtor, acquired the claim and satisfied the opposability requirement by means of a notice bearing a fixed date,
• after the notice of cancellation of provisional attachment execution has been served on the third-party debtor, is no longer subject to the restriction of the effect prohibiting disposition, and
• since the already cancelled provisional attachment execution is not retroactively revived,
• if the opposability requirement for the assignment of the claim by means of a notice bearing a fixed date has been satisfied,
• as at the time of the attachment or provisional attachment the attached claim is already as if it did not exist, the attachment or provisional attachment has no effect as such.
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2017. 10. 19. 자 2015마1383 결정(공2017하, 2165)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2015Ma1383 decided October 19, 2017 (Gong 2017 Ha, 2165)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 1968. 9. 17. 선고 68다1118 판결(집16-3, 민30), 대법원 2017. 10. 19. 자 2015마1383 결정(공2017하, 2165) / [2] 대법원 2010. 10. 28. 선고 2010다57213, 57220 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
If the cancellation notice was served on the third debtor and another creditor's attachment was carried out on the same day, which one takes priority?
A later decision that changes the requirements for opposing an assignment by a date-certain notice, or the conclusive effect of service of a cancellation notice, would require this entry to be read again. So would an amendment to Article 286, Article 288(1), Article 223 or Article 227 of the Civil Execution Act, or Article 450 of the Civil Act.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-26
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on 7 of the 8 axes; the readings differed on axis 8 (open question and revisit condition).
Axis 8 (Open question and revisit condition): Primary “If the cancellation notice was served on the third debtor and another creditor's attachment was carried out on the same day, which one takes priority?” vs Independent “What remedies remain available to the original attaching creditor against the debtor after cancellation of execution allows the assignee to assert unencumbered acquisition?”
The primary reading asks about priority when cancellation service and another attachment occur on the same day while the independent reading asks about remaining remedies for the original creditor.
채권가압류취소결정의 집행으로서 집행법원이 제3채무자에게 가압류집행취소통지서를 송달한 경우 그 효력은 확정적이므로, 채권가압류결정이 제3채무자에게 송달된 상태에서 그 채권을 양수하여 확정일자 있는 통지 등에 의한 대항요건을 갖춘 채권양수인은 위와 같이 가압류집행취소통지서가 제3채무자에게 송달된 이후에는 더 이상 처분금지효의 제한을 받지 않고 아무런 부담이 없는 채권 취득의 효력을 가압류채권자에게 대항할 수 있게 된다.Raw responses and comparison record: Protocol · Blind readings (JSONL) · Axis comparison (JSONL) · SHA-256 (JSON)
Lower-court contrast & scope of application
Lower-court reading vs. Supreme Court holding
Lower-court context: The Seoul Southern District Court, in its judgment of 20 July 2017 (2016Na62717), dismissed the plaintiff's claim for collection of a claim. It found that the plaintiff had attached PT Cafe Korea's claim against the defendant for return of a lease deposit, that PT Cafe Allianz Branch then acquired that claim, and that service of the cancellation notice on the third debtor gave the assignee the claim free of the attachment. It also rejected the plaintiff's argument that a non-party's earlier garnishment order preserved the attachment, because that order was served after the assignment and so likewise attached a claim that no longer existed.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the court below had applied the correct law and had not misunderstood the effect of the attachment and of its cancelled execution. It dismissed the plaintiff's appeal and placed the costs of the appeal on the plaintiff, by the unanimous opinion of the Justices concerned.
Distinguishing conditions
- A case in which the notice cancelling execution of the attachment was not yet served on the third debtor, so that the effect of the cancellation was not conclusive.
- An assignee who did not meet the requirements for opposing an assignment by a date-certain notice and other means.
- An assignment made after the attachment had already taken effect, where the decision's rule protects a disposal made before the attachment's effect arose against creditors joining execution later.
Record verification notes
Set the date on which the cancellation notice was served on the third debtor against the date on which the assignee met the date-certain notice requirement, and then against the dates on which other creditors' attachment or garnishment orders were served. Note that a later appellate annulment of the cancellation decision and confirmation of the attachment does not revive the cancelled execution, which is why the sequence of service, not the later appellate ruling, decides the point.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채권가압류취소결정의 집행으로서 집행법원이 제3채무자에게 가압류집행취소통지서를 송달한 경우, 채권가압류결정이 제3채무자에게 송달된 상태에서 그 채권을 양수하여 확정일자 있는 통지 등에 의한 대항요건을 갖춘 채권양수인이 채권 취득의 효력을 가압류채권자에게 대항할 수 있는지 여부(적극) 및 이는 이후 항고심에서 가압류취소결정을 취소하여 가압류결정을 인가하였더라도 마찬가지인지 여부(적극) [2] 채무자가 압류 또는 가압류의 대상인 채권을 양도하고 확정일자 있는 통지 등에 의한 채권양도의 대항요건을 갖춘 경우, 그 후 채무자의 다른 채권자가 양도된 채권에 대하여 한 압류 또는 가압류의 효력(무효)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where the enforcement court serves on the third-party debtor a notice of cancellation of provisional attachment execution as enforcement of a decision cancelling a provisional attachment of a claim, a transferee of the claim who acquired the claim while the provisional attachment decision had been served on the third-party debtor and who has satisfied the opposability requirement by means of a notice bearing a fixed date may assert against the attaching creditor the effect of the acquisition of the claim (affirmative), and whether the same holds even if, in the subsequent appeal proceedings, the decision cancelling the provisional attachment was revoked and the provisional attachment decision was affirmed (affirmative) [2] Where the debtor has assigned a claim that is subject to attachment or provisional attachment and has satisfied the opposability requirement for the assignment of the claim by means of a notice bearing a fixed date, the effect (void) of an attachment or provisional attachment placed thereafter by the debtor's other creditor on the assigned claim
Summary of the holding
[1] 채권가압류취소결정의 집행으로서 집행법원이 제3채무자에게 가압류집행취소통지서를 송달한 경우 그 효력은 확정적이므로, 채권가압류결정이 제3채무자에게 송달된 상태에서 그 채권을 양수하여 확정일자 있는 통지 등에 의한 대항요건을 갖춘 채권양수인은 위와 같이 가압류집행취소통지서가 제3채무자에게 송달된 이후에는 더 이상 처분금지효의 제한을 받지 않고 아무런 부담이 없는 채권 취득의 효력을 가압류채권자에게 대항할 수 있게 된다. 위와 같이 가압류취소결정의 집행이 완료된 이상 이후 항고심에서 가압류취소결정을 취소하여 가압류결정을 인가하였다고 하더라도, 이미 취소된 가압류집행이 소급하여 부활하는 것은 아니므로, 채권양수인이 아무런 부담이 없는 채권 취득의 효력을 가압류채권자에게 대항할 수 있음은 마찬가지이다. [2] 채권압류의 효력발생 전에 채무자가 채권을 처분한 경우에는 그보다 먼저 압류한 채권자가 있어 그 채권자에게는 대항할 수 없는 사정이 있더라도 처분 후에 집행에 참가하는 채권자에 대하여는 처분의 효력을 대항할 수 있는 것이므로, 채무자가 압류 또는 가압류의 대상인 채권을 양도하고 확정일자 있는 통지 등에 의한 채권양도의 대항요건을 갖추었다면, 그 후 채무자의 다른 채권자가 양도된 채권에 대하여 압류 또는 가압류를 하더라도 압류 또는 가압류 당시에 피압류채권은 이미 존재하지 않는 것과 같아 압류 또는 가압류로서의 효력이 없다.
Order
상고를 기각한다. 상고비용은 원고가 부담한다.
Unofficial English translation
The appeal is dismissed. The plaintiff shall bear the costs of the final appeal.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사집행법 제286조, 제288조 제1항, 민법 제450조 [2] 민사집행법 제223조, 제227조, 민법 제450조
Read 2026-10-26 · Cross-read 2026-10-26. All quotes matched against the official text. The Chinese-character placeholders the court used for anonymised parties are given in their Korean readings, and parenthetical Chinese-character glosses are omitted.
Every entry is published only after all quotes have been matched character by character against the official text, and audited by an independent second reading from a different model family across all eight axes. Both agreed axes and text-grounded interpretive divergences are recorded openly. The ledger is a research record, not an assessment of the court or advice on any matter.
Back to the ledger