Open Decision Ledger · Civil procedure & enforcement
Collection order keeps the debtor's standing but the earlier win bars the second suit
Supreme Court, Dec. 4, 2025, 2022Da299829 (judgment)
Case name: 물품대금
Official text on the National Law Information Center
Question
Where a creditor holding a collection order over a debtor's claim against the third party has already won a final judgment in a collection suit, does the debtor lose standing to sue the third party on the same attached claim, and may the debtor bring the same claim again?
Holding
The debtor keeps standing. A collection creditor sues as a kind of collecting agent for the debtor, so the res judicata of the final judgment it obtained in the collection suit binds the debtor whatever the outcome of that suit. Where a person bound by a final winning judgment brings against the same opposing party a second suit on the same claim as the first, the second suit has no interest in protection and is improper, and the court must examine the existence of res judicata of its own motion, even without a party's pleading.
Summary of the holding, verbatim
채무자의 제3채무자에 대한 채권에 관하여 추심명령이 있더라도 채무자는 제3채무자를 상대로 피압류채권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하지 않는다.
Unofficial English translation
Even where there is a collection order with respect to a claim held by the debtor against a third-party debtor, the debtor does not lose party standing to bring an action for performance against the third-party debtor concerning the attached claim.
Disposition
Partly reversed and remanded Stated in the decision
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below where the defendant lost is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Form of the test
Elements stated Stated in the decision
승소 확정판결의 기판력이 미치는 자가 전소의 상대방을 상대로 다시 승소 확정판결을 받은 전소와 동일한 청구의 소를 제기하는 경우 후소는 권리보호의 이익이 없어 부적법하다
Unofficial English translation
Where a person to whom the res judicata of a winning final and conclusive judgment extends again brings an action against the opposing party in the prior action on the same claim as that of the prior action in which the winning final and conclusive judgment was rendered, the subsequent action is impermissible for lack of an interest in the protection of rights
Factors
- 채무자는 제3채무자를 상대로 피압류채권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하지 않는다
- 추심명령을 받은 채권자가 일종의 추심기관으로서 채무자를 위하여 추심소송에서 받은 확정판결의 기판력은 소송 결과에 관계없이 채무자에게 미친다(민사소송법 제218조 제3항)
- 승소 확정판결의 기판력이 미치는 자가 전소의 상대방을 상대로 다시 승소 확정판결을 받은 전소와 동일한 청구의 소를 제기하는 경우 후소는 권리보호의 이익이 없어 부적법하다
- 확정판결 기판력의 존부는 직권조사사항이므로 당사자의 주장이 없더라도 법원이 이를 직권으로 조사하여 판단하여야 한다
Unofficial English translation
• The debtor does not lose party standing to bring an action for performance against the third-party debtor concerning the attached claim
• The res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment obtained in a collection action by the creditor who has received a collection order, acting as a kind of collection agent for the debtor, extends to the debtor regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit (Article 218 (3) of the Civil Procedure Act)
• Where a person to whom the res judicata of a winning final and conclusive judgment extends again brings an action against the opposing party in the prior action on the same claim as that of the prior action in which the winning final and conclusive judgment was rendered, the subsequent action is impermissible for lack of an interest in the protection of rights
• The existence or non-existence of the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is a matter to be examined ex officio, so the court must examine and determine it ex officio even without any assertion by the parties
Relation to precedent
Follows earlier decisions Stated in the decision
대법원 2025. 10. 23. 선고 2021다252977 전원합의체 판결(공2025하, 2229)
Unofficial English translation
Supreme Court en banc Judgment 2021Da252977, decided October 23, 2025 (Gong 2025 Ha, 2229)
Decisions referred to
[1] 대법원 2025. 10. 23. 선고 2021다252977 전원합의체 판결(공2025하, 2229) / [2] 대법원 1990. 10. 23. 선고 89다카23329 판결(공1990, 2377), 대법원 2006. 4. 14. 선고 2005다74764 판결, 대법원 2014. 9. 25. 선고 2013다215232 판결, 대법원 2016. 9. 28. 선고 2016다13482 판결
Burden of proof
Not addressed Not in the decision
Open question and revisit condition
When several creditors hold collection orders over the same goods-price claim and only one has obtained a final winning judgment, what part of the claim can the debtor still recover from the third party?
The remand judgment of the Seoul High Court, examining the existence and finality of collection suits by the plaintiff's other creditors, will show how far the res judicata reaches in a claim shared by several collecting creditors. Any amendment to Article 218(3) of the Civil Procedure Act or Article 229(2) of the Civil Execution Act, and any later change in the reading of the en banc decision of 23 October 2025 (2021Da252977), would also require this entry to be read again.
Cross-family AI independent reading & axis check
7 of 8 axes matched GPT-6 Astra (OpenAI, codex CLI) · 2026-10-24
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 “When several creditors hold collection orders over the same goods-price claim and only one has obtained a final winning judgment, what part of the claim can the debtor still recover from the third party?” vs Independent “Under what exceptional circumstances could the debtor have an interest in bringing an identical claim despite a favorable final judgment binding the debtor?”
The primary asks what portion remains recoverable when several creditors hold collection orders, whereas the independent asks when an identical action exceptionally retains an interest in judicial protection.
채무자의 제3채무자에 대한 채권에 관하여 추심명령이 있더라도 채무자는 제3채무자를 상대로 피압류채권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하지 않는다.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 decision does not set out the reasoning of the Seoul High Court, in its judgment of 11 November 2022 (2021Na2013415). What appears from the record is that the court below left Defendant liable in part, and that Defendant's appeal argued that the collection order had cost the plaintiff its standing to sue on the goods-price claim.
Supreme Court standard: On standing the Supreme Court saw no error, following the en banc decision of 23 October 2025 (2021Da252977). On its own motion, however, it held that the res judicata of the collection creditor's final winning judgment against Defendant bound the plaintiff, so the part of the suit seeking the same amount lacked interest in protection and was improper. Because the record showed that the plaintiff's other creditors had also obtained attachment and collection orders over the same goods-price claim, whether collection suits by those other creditors existed and had become final still had to be examined, and the whole part in which Defendant lost was reversed and remanded.
Distinguishing conditions
- A second suit on a claim over which no collection order has been issued, so that no collection creditor's judgment can bind the debtor.
- A second suit that is not the same claim as the first, since the bar turns on the later claim being identical to the claim on which the collection creditor already won.
- A later suit against a party other than the opposing party in the first suit, since the bar is framed against a person bound by a final winning judgment suing the opposing party of the earlier suit again.
Record verification notes
Collect the payment order, each attachment and collection order with its court, date and amount, and the collection creditor's judgment with the date it became final, since the res judicata reached the debtor in this case on that footing. Set the amount and cause of the later claim against the claim in the first suit to test whether they are the same claim, and confirm that the same party faces the second suit as the first. Then list every other creditor's collection order and the status of that creditor's collection suit, because the court below must examine the existence and finality of res judicata itself, whether or not a party pleads it.
From the official text
Points at issue
[1] 채무자의 제3채무자에 대한 채권에 관하여 추심명령이 있는 경우, 채무자가 피압류채권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하는지 여부(소극) [2] 추심명령을 받은 채권자가 일종의 추심기관으로서 채무자를 위하여 추심소송에서 받은 확정판결의 기판력이 소송 결과에 관계없이 채무자에게 미치는지 여부(적극) 및 승소 확정판결의 기판력이 미치는 자가 전소의 상대방을 상대로 전소와 동일한 청구의 소를 제기하는 경우, 후소에 권리보호의 이익이 있는지 여부(소극) / 확정판결 기판력의 존부는 직권조사사항인지 여부(적극)
Unofficial English translation
[1] Whether, where there is a collection order with respect to a claim held by the debtor against a third-party debtor, the debtor loses party standing to bring an action for performance concerning the attached claim (negative) [2] Whether the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment obtained in a collection action by the creditor who has received a collection order, acting as a kind of collection agent for the debtor, extends to the debtor regardless of the outcome of the lawsuit (affirmative) and, where a person to whom the res judicata of a winning final and conclusive judgment extends brings an action against the opposing party in the prior action on the same claim as that of the prior action in which the winning final and conclusive judgment was rendered, whether the subsequent action has an interest in the protection of rights (negative) / Whether the existence or non-existence of the res judicata of a final and conclusive judgment is a matter to be examined ex officio (affirmative)
Summary of the holding
[1] 채무자의 제3채무자에 대한 채권에 관하여 추심명령이 있더라도 채무자는 제3채무자를 상대로 피압류채권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하지 않는다. [2] 추심명령을 받은 채권자가 일종의 추심기관으로서 채무자를 위하여 추심소송에서 받은 확정판결의 기판력은 소송 결과에 관계없이 채무자에게 미친다(민사소송법 제218조 제3항). 승소 확정판결의 기판력이 미치는 자가 전소의 상대방을 상대로 다시 승소 확정판결을 받은 전소와 동일한 청구의 소를 제기하는 경우 후소는 권리보호의 이익이 없어 부적법하다. 확정판결 기판력의 존부는 직권조사사항이므로 당사자의 주장이 없더라도 법원이 이를 직권으로 조사하여 판단하여야 한다.
Order
원심판결 중 피고 패소 부분을 파기하고, 이 부분 사건을 서울고등법원에 환송한다.
Unofficial English translation
The portion of the judgment of the court below where the defendant lost is reversed, and this part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
Provisions referred to
[1] 민사집행법 제229조 제2항, 제249조 제1항 / [2] 민사소송법 제134조[직권조사사항], 제216조, 제218조 제3항, 제248조[소의 이익], 민사집행법 제229조 제2항
Read 2026-10-24 · Cross-read 2026-10-24. 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