2. The creditor's request for the seizure and collection order of the instant case is dismissed.

According to the records, on May 27, 2008, the Seoul Southern District Court 2004Gao276653, which was brought by the creditor against ○○○○○○○ Party, based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment, which was rendered by the creditor, and based on the executory exemplification of the judgment in the lawsuit claiming unjust enrichment, it can be acknowledged that the Seoul Southern Southern District Court received from the debtor

2. Summary of grounds for appeal;

The order of the court below that issued a seizure and collection order concerning the political party subsidy delivery claim is unlawful, because it is prohibited from transferring its nature as it is so that it cannot be subject to compulsory execution, and thus it is restricted from seizure and collection.

3. Determination

A. We examine whether the claims indicated in the attached list, which are the claims subject to seizure, are prohibited from seizure, of the above claims seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the above claims”).

B. The above claim is a political party subsidy claim held against the Republic of Korea by ○○○ Party’s successor, a third debtor. According to Article 3 subparag. 6, Article 28(1), and Article 28(2) of the Political Funds Act, subsidies to political parties are prohibited from being used for any purpose other than a certain one. Since Articles 2 subparag. 1 and 22(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies stipulate that subsidies granted to political parties for affairs or projects conducted by a person other than the State shall not be used for any purpose other than a certain one, the above claim for subsidies granted by political parties against the State shall be regarded as a claim bound by the trust of a political party due to its nature and shall not be subject to compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Order 96Ma1302, Dec. 24, 1996, etc.).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since an obligee's request for the above seizure and collection order was made with respect to a claim which cannot be seized, it shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Thus, the order of the court below which concluded otherwise is unfair, and the obligee's above seizure and collection order is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Dong-dong (Presiding Judge)