퇴직연금
The judgment below
The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.
The defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. The summary and main issues of the instant case
A. The facts of this case and the arguments of the parties are as follows, which are revealed by the reasoning of the judgment below.
(1) B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) established a defined benefit retirement pension system and selected the Defendant, etc. as a retirement pension trustee (operating asset management agency). On October 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of the Nonparty Company and subscribed to the said retirement pension.
(2) After retirement on February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff claimed a retirement pension against the Defendant by the instant lawsuit.
(C) The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s retirement pension claim against the Plaintiff is offset against the Plaintiff’s retirement pension claim against the Plaintiff’s retirement pension claim.
With regard to this, the Plaintiff asserts that the set-off by the Defendant, who made the part equivalent to 1/2 of the instant retirement pension claims, is prohibited, is set-off against 1/2 of the instant retirement pension claims pursuant to Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act.
B. The first instance court rejected the Defendant’s defense of setting-off, deeming that the instant retirement pension claim constitutes a claim prohibiting seizure under Article 246(1)5 of the Civil Execution Act.
Unlike this, the lower court deemed that the instant retirement pension claim does not constitute a claim prohibiting seizure under Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act, and accepted the Defendant’s counterclaim against offset.
C. The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant retirement pension claim constitutes a claim prohibiting seizure under Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act.
2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the legality of the instant lawsuit
A. First, we examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.
The defendant shall seize and seize the claims for the retirement pension of this case.