Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Attachment and collection order and the debtor's standing to sue
Supreme Court, Dec. 27, 2018, 2018Da268385 (judgment)
No holding summary · checked against points at issue. The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Case name: 대여금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a claim has been placed under an attachment and collection order, does the debtor lose standing to bring an action for performance against the third debtor, must the court examine that standing of its own motion, may it be raised for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court, and does the substantive claim in the suit become the attached claim when the order names the amount payable by the third debtor as indicated by the result of the suit?
Holding
Yes. Once an attachment and collection order over a claim is served on the third debtor, the debtor loses standing to sue that third debtor for performance of the attached claim. That question concerns a requirement of action, so the court must examine it of its own motion, and a party may raise and prove it for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court. Where the attachment order names the amount the third debtor must pay as indicated by the result of the suit, the substantive claim that is the object of that suit may be regarded as the attached claim under the attachment and collection order.
Points at issue, verbatim
채권에 대한 압류 및 추심명령이 있는 경우, 채무자는 피압류채권에 대한 이행소송을 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
Whether, where there is an attachment and collection order against a claim, the debtor loses party standing to bring a performance action with respect to the attached claim (affirmative)
Disposition
Reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
위와 같은 당사자적격에 관한 사항은 소송요건에 관한 것으로서 법원이 이를 직권으로 조사하여 판단하여야 하고
Unofficial English translation
Matters of party standing as described above pertain to the requirements of a lawsuit, and therefore the court must investigate and determine them ex officio, and
Factors
- 채권에 대한 압류 및 추심명령이 있는 경우
- 채무자는 피압류채권에 대한 이행소송을 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하는지 여부(적극)
- 당사자적격에 관한 사항이 법원의 직권조사사항인지 여부(적극)
- 당사자가 상고심에서 새로이 이를 주장·증명할 수 있는지 여부(적극)
- 판결 결과에 따라 제3채무자가 채무자에게 지급하여야 하는 금액을 피압류채권으로 표시한 경우
Unofficial English translation
• where there is an attachment and collection order against a claim
• whether the debtor loses party standing to bring a performance action with respect to the attached claim (affirmative)
• whether matters concerning party standing are subject to the court's investigation ex officio (affirmative)
• whether a party may newly assert and prove them for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court (affirmative)
• where the amount that the third-party debtor must pay to the debtor in accordance with the outcome of the judgment is indicated as the attached claim
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2010다40444 판결
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court Decision 2010Da40444 decided April 28, 2011
Decisions referred to
[1][2] 대법원 2011. 4. 28. 선고 2010다40444 판결, 대법원 2018. 7. 20. 선고 2018다220178 판결 / [1] 대법원 2008. 9. 25. 선고 2007다60417 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
Where several attachment and collection orders cover overlapping parts of one claim, how is the range in which the plaintiff retains standing to be determined?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, once it fixes the range in which the plaintiff retained standing and re-tries the rest, will show how the rule is applied to overlapping orders. Any amendment to Articles 225, 227 or 229(2) of the Civil Execution Act, or a later decision treating service of an attachment order differently, calls for this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
8 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-25
A reader from another model family (GPT-6 Astra), given the official text but not the primary reading, agreed on all 8 axes.
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 High Court, in its judgment of 14 August 2018 (2015Na2073706), held that the plaintiff was entitled to have the defendant settle and repay the other building costs paid or advanced for the works, and to claim pre-subrogation of the balance of the sale price as a surety who had received the request, and granted part of the claim on the footing that the plaintiff had standing over all the claims it asserted.
Supreme Court standard: The Supreme Court held that the four attachment and collection orders served on the third debtor, in the amounts of KRW 42,906,336, KRW 117,780,821, KRW 31,787,090 and KRW 75,136,128, deprived the plaintiff of standing for the attached claims, so that the court below had to determine afresh the range in which the plaintiff retained standing. Because the whole judgment rested on the premise that the plaintiff had standing over the claims for settlement money and pre-subrogation money, it could not stand, and the appellant's ground pointing this out was well founded. Further orders existed in which the plaintiff was the debtor and the defendant the third debtor, and the total of the attached claims the defendant said were identical to the claim in suit exceeded the part of the judgment in which the plaintiff had won, so the losing part had to be retried as well and the whole judgment was reversed and remanded, without ruling on the plaintiff's appeal grounds.
Distinguishing conditions
- An attachment and collection order that has not been served on the third debtor, since standing was lost on service.
- An attachment order whose attached claim is not identical to the substantive claim that is the object of the suit, since identity decides whether standing is lost.
- A suit by a party other than the debtor, such as the collecting creditor, since only the debtor loses standing to sue on the attached claim.
Record verification notes
Collect every attachment and collection order naming the plaintiff as debtor and this defendant as third debtor, with its claim amount, date of issue and date of service on the third debtor, since service is what removes standing. Set each attached claim against the substantive claim in the suit to test identity, then add the totals and compare them with the amount awarded and the amount refused below, because the scope of standing turns on that comparison and affects the losing part as well.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채권에 대한 압류 및 추심명령이 있는 경우, 채무자는 피압류채권에 대한 이행소송을 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하는지 여부(적극) / 당사자적격에 관한 사항이 법원의 직권조사사항인지 여부(적극) 및 당사자가 상고심에서 새로이 이를 주장·증명할 수 있는지 여부(적극) [2] 판결 결과에 따라 제3채무자가 채무자에게 지급하여야 하는 금액을 피압류채권으로 표시한 경우, 해당 소송의 소송물인 실체법상 채권이 채권압류 및 추심명령의 피압류채권이 되는지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where there is an attachment and collection order against a claim, the debtor loses party standing to bring a performance action with respect to the attached claim (affirmative) / Whether matters concerning party standing are subject to the court's investigation ex officio (affirmative) and whether a party may newly assert and prove them for the first time on appeal to the Supreme Court (affirmative) [2] Where the amount that the third-party debtor must pay to the debtor in accordance with the outcome of the judgment is indicated as the attached claim, whether the claim under substantive law, which is the subject matter of suit in that lawsuit, becomes the attached claim under the attachment and collection order (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
The official text publishes no summary of the holding for this decision. The quotation and factors in this record are copied verbatim from the points at issue; the evidence for each axis is taken from the points at issue, the order and the reasons.
Order
원심판결을 파기하고, 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사소송법 제51조, 민사집행법 제229조 제2항 [2] 민사집행법 제225조, 제227조, 제229조 제2항
Read 2026-10-25 · Cross-read 2026-10-25. 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