추심명령이 있는 경우 채무자가 피압류채권에 관한 이행의 소를 제기할 당사자적격을 상실하는지 여부

Previous decisions held that a debtor loses standing to sue for satisfaction of a garnished debt against a garnishee in a case where the court issues a garnishment order of a debt the debtor holds against the garnishee. The previous decisions held that this falls under the matters of the court’s ex officio investigation, and thus where the debtor loses standing after the close of pleading in the fact-finding instance, the final appellate court should consider the debtor’s lack of standing. The subject decision remanded the case without examining the merits on the grounds of the debtor’s lack of standing following a garnishment order, and the lower court dismissed the lawsuit in part (which led the case to a second final appeal). However, in a case where a new garnishment order was issued with regard to a claim for court-ordered money (principal and interest included) subsequent to the pronouncement of a lower judgment, a dispute arose as to whether to reverse the lower judgment in accordance with the previous decisions for the reasons of the plaintiff’s lack of standing. The subject decision changed the previous decisions by concluding that the debtor does not lose standing to sue for satisfaction of a garnished debt against the garnishee even if there exists an order of garnishment of a debt owed to the debtor by the garnishee, based on the following reasons: ① the debtor’s filing of a lawsuit for satisfaction of a garnished debt against the garnishee is not in violation of the order; ② there is no legal basis for considering that the debtor loses standing simply because there exists a garnishment order; ③ considering that the debtor does not lose standing does not necessarily place either the judgment creditor or the garnishee at a disadvantage; and ④ considering that the debtor loses standing following the issuance of a garnishment order works against a single, comprehensive resolution of a dispute and procedural economy, and does not serve the interest of the judgment creditor. Under the subject decision, ① in a case where either the debtor or the judgment creditor has filed a lawsuit which is pending at the court, a lawsuit filed thereafter constitutes double litigation prohibited under Article 259 of the Civil Procedure Act and is thus invalid; ② the debtor and the judgment creditor can intervene in an earlier filed action as a co-litigant or a supplementary intervenor; and ③ a final judgment rendered from such action is binding on the debtor, the active judgment creditor, and other nonparty judgment creditors regardless of whether the judgment was rendered before or after the close of pleading and whether the debtor or the judgment creditor lost or won the suit. Following the subject decision helps streamline and centralize the venue for filing an action, eliminates the possibility for inconsistencies or friction between final judgments, and spares the garnishee the burden of responding to a new lawsuit. In the meantime, it must be assured that, to bring the intended purpose of the subject decision to full realization, the practice at the field regarding garnishment orders is improved by guaranteeing the opportunities for the parties at stake to seek intervention in a lawsuit.