債權者代位權의 行使와 轉付命令의 效力

This is a review of the Supreme Court’s decision on August 29, 2016, 2015da236547. The decision was based on the provisions of Article 405 (2) of the Civil Act and Article 229 (5) of the Civil Execution Act, saying, “In principle, Assignment Order for subrogation claims made after the subrogation lawsuit is filed and the subrogation creditor notifies the debtor of the exercise of the subrogation right, or the debtor becomes aware of this, is null and void.” In this paper, However, I investigated that those provisions could not be the basis for the above judgment. The content of Article 405 (2) of the Civil Act is not clear, and as long as it is a provision of the Civil Act, the Assignment Order cannot be immediately invalidated based on it, and the provisions of Article 229 (5) of the Civil Execution Act is, rather, the decisive evidence that proves the injustice of the above judgment.