상세검색
최근 검색어 전체 삭제
다국어입력
즐겨찾기0
158236.jpg
KCI등재 학술저널

債權者代位權의 行使와 轉付命令의 效力

대법원 2016. 8. 29. 선고 2015다236547 판결

  • 47

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.

【事實關係의 槪要와 事件의 經過】

1. 사건관계인의 표시

2. 丙에 대한 乙의 채권〔대위할 채권, 전부채권〕과 甲의 채권자대위권 행사

3. 乙의 채권에 대한 甲의 압류 전부명령

4. 甲이 대위할 채권에 대한 丁의 압류 전부명령

5. 丙의 청구이의의 訴 제기

6. 제1심 판결: 서울동부지방법원 2014. 10. 17. 선고 2014가합102867 판결

7. 항소심 판결: 2015. 9. 1. 선고 2014 나2042330 판결

8. 상고심 판결: 대법원 2016. 8. 29. 선고 2015다236547 판결〔대상 판결〕

【硏究】

Ⅰ. 緖論

Ⅱ. 本論

Ⅲ. 結論

로딩중