A. The Plaintiff served as the representative director of Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”).

B. On May 28, 2010, Nonparty Company subscribed to a defined benefit plan established by the Defendant under the Act on the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits, and the Plaintiff owned the Defendant’s deposit claim of KRW 55,472,213 of the retirement pension plan (hereinafter “instant deposit claim”).

C. On September 16, 201, the non-party company was unable to pay taxes, and reported the closure of business on December 31, 201.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff retired from office around December 31, 201 after the non-party company discontinued its business. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the money equivalent to the amount of the deposit claim in this case, barring special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of offsetting

A. The defendant's defense and the summary of the plaintiff's second defense are defense that the defendant's joint and several guarantee claim against the plaintiff is offset against the plaintiff's deposit claim of this case.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff is prohibited from seizing all of the deposit claims of this case pursuant to Article 7(1) of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act, and thus, the set-off by the Defendant, which is a passive claim, is all prohibited, and even if not, the seizure of 1/2 of the deposit claims of this case is prohibited pursuant to Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act. Thus, the Defendant’s set-off of the part corresponding to the above 1/2 as a passive claim is prohibited.

B. 1) In case where monetary claims against an obligor against a third party obligor are prohibited from transferring under the Act on the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits, barring any special circumstance, they cannot be commercialized even if they are seized. Thus, there is no eligibility for seizure.

However, there is a problem.