Precautionary Attachment in the UAE and South Korea: A Comparative Tool for Securing Assets
Korea Focus
Omar OmarPartner, Head of Transport & Insurance
Fares AbdullahAssociate,Transport & Insurance
Youra KimLegal Researcher,Korea Group
Precautionary attachment is one of the most effective interim measures available to creditors when pursuing claims in both the United Arab Emirates and South Korea. Though rooted in different legal traditions — the UAE being a civil law jurisdiction with strong procedural codification, and South Korea combining civil law principles with a robust commercial enforcement regime — both systems share the common goal of preventing debtors from dissipating assets before a judgment can be enforced. For businesses and investors engaged across these markets, particularly in cross-border trade and maritime sectors, understanding the scope, process, and strategic value of precautionary attachment is essential.
In both countries, the logic behind precautionary attachment is straightforward. A judgment, however favourable, is of little use if there are no assets left to enforce against. Debtors who anticipate adverse rulings may transfer funds abroad, conceal property, or otherwise diminish their recoverable estate. The precautionary attachment mechanism is therefore designed to preserve assets in situ, protecting creditors from being left with nothing more than a “paper victory.”
In the UAE, the legal basis for precautionary attachment is set out in Article 247 of the Civil Procedure Code (Federal Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022). The court may order an attachment when there are credible grounds to believe that a debtor’s assets may be lost, such as when a debtor has no permanent residence in the country, appears likely to abscond, or is suspected of attempting to conceal or remove property. The law frames this as a means of preserving the creditor’s right by securing assets until the claim is resolved.
In South Korea, the legal foundation is Article 276 of the Civil Execution Act, supplemented by provisions in the Civil Procedure Act. Korean law allows for precautionary attachment only in respect of monetary claims or claims convertible into money, but the principle is the same: safeguarding the creditor’s right to eventual enforcement by freezing assets at an early stage.
The scope of attachable assets under each system is broad, though subject to statutory exclusions. In the UAE, assets that can be attached include bank accounts, real estate, movable assets such as vehicles, equipment, or inventory, and debts owed to the defendant by third parties. Certain categories, such as essential personal belongings and limited portions of wages, are exempt to ensure proportionality. In South Korea, attachable assets include claims, movables, and real estate, but with sharper exclusions. Under Article 246 of the Civil Execution Act, “non-assignable” or “non-attachable” claims are excluded, including half of a debtor’s monthly salary or part of retirement pensions. Both systems thus recognise the need to balance creditor rights with basic debtor protections.
A judgment, however favourable, is of little use if there are no assets left to enforce against.
The process of obtaining precautionary attachment differs markedly in speed and formality. In the UAE, applications are typically made ex parte, either to the judge of the Urgent Matters Court or to the court already hearing the dispute. The claimant must show a prima facie case with credible evidence and a real risk of dissipation, and wherever possible should identify the specific assets to be attached. The courts treat these applications with urgency, often issuing decisions within forty-eight hours of filing. If successful, the order is dispatched immediately to the relevant authorities — such as the UAE Central Bank or the Land Department — freezing the assets without delay (subject to the court timelines). The claimant must then file the substantive case within eight days, or the order lapses automatically. In some instances, courts may also require a bank guarantee to protect against wrongful attachment, though this is discretionary.
In South Korea, applications are submitted in writing to the competent district court. They must include details of the claim, the assets to be attached, and the necessity of preservation, defined as circumstances where execution of a judgment would be impossible or extremely difficult without attachment. The court first conducts a formal review for compliance and often requires the applicant to post security, which may be one-tenth of the claim for real estate, four-fifths for movables, or two-fifths for other claims. There is no fixed statutory deadline, and decisions usually take one week to one month. Creditors then have up to three years after enforcement of the attachment to file the main action, a much longer window than in the UAE.
Both jurisdictions allow debtors to challenge an attachment. In the UAE, defendants may offer equivalent security or contest the basis of the order, while in South Korea, debtors may file an objection within ten days of service, though enforcement is not suspended by the objection alone. In both systems, wrongful attachment claims are possible, though in practice they succeed only in cases of bad faith or fraud.
Despite these differences, the underlying principles are similar. Both jurisdictions regard precautionary attachment as an essential tool to prevent frustration of enforcement. Both allow ex parte applications, both provide courts with discretion to require security, and both afford debtors a right to challenge after the order is granted.
The divergences are largely procedural. The UAE system is leaner and faster, demanding immediate follow-through but delivering asset freezes in as little as two days. South Korea’s system is slower and more formalised, but offers creditors more time to pursue the main claim and requires upfront security to protect debtors. Each reflects the priorities of its legal system: urgency and speed in the UAE, structure and balance in South Korea.
For businesses, the implications are significant. In the UAE, speed is the defining feature. A creditor can immobilise assets in less than 48 hours, a critical advantage in highly mobile sectors such as shipping, commodities, and cross-border trade. For Korean companies trading with UAE entities, this provides reassurance that swift relief is available if risk of dissipation arises. Conversely, South Korea’s structured approach offers predictability and fairness, with security deposits acting as a check against frivolous or tactical use of the process.
ISSUE
UAE
SOUTH KOREA
Legal Basis
Article 247 of the Civil Procedure Code (Fed. Decree-Law No. 42 of 2022)
Article 276 of the Civil Execution Act; procedures under Civil Execution Act & Civil Procedure Act
Decision Timeline
Often resolved within 48 hours of filing
No fixed statutory period; typically 1 week to 1 month
Main Action Filing
Must be filed within 8 days of the attachment order (otherwise lapses)
Must be filed within 3 years of attachment enforcement (grounds for cancellation if not)
Non-Attachable Claims
Not explicitly detailed in statute (though some exemptions recognised)
Statutorily excluded: “non-assignable” or “non-attachable” claims (e.g., half of monthly salary, part of pensions)
Precautionary attachment in both the UAE and South Korea represents a vital legal strategy for creditors. The mechanics differ — speed and immediacy in the UAE, security and formality in South Korea — but the purpose remains constant: to safeguard creditor rights and prevent debtors from rendering judgments worthless. For companies active in both jurisdictions, particularly in maritime and international trade, the message is clear. Prompt, well-prepared applications, supported by evidence and guided by local expertise, can make the difference between a hollow victory and an actual recovery.
For further information,please contact Omar Omar and Fares Abdullah.
Published in October 2025
