beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked, and that part is revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On September 26, 2013, the Plaintiff was awarded a favorable judgment with the purport that “C shall pay to the Plaintiff 3,000,000 won and the amount calculated by the rate of 20% per annum from January 4, 2007 to December 11, 2012,” and the said judgment was finalized on December 5, 2013.
When the debtor in the obligation to be attached retires between the amount claimed by one-half of the balance obtained by subtracting public imposts of taxes from the amount of salary (the principal salary and the corresponding thereto) and bonus that the debtor in the obligation to seize on a monthly basis from the third obligation, and one-half of the balance obtained by deducting public imposts of taxes from the amount of the monthly claim (Provided, That where the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act is equivalent to the amount prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act in consideration of the minimum cost of living under the National Basic Living Security Act, taking into account the living expenses of the standard household, the remaining amount excluding such amount, and where the amount falls under the amount prescribed by the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act in consideration of the living expenses of the standard household) and the amount of the above claim, one-half of the
B. On November 23, 2017, based on the executory exemplification of the above judgment, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2017, 116720; hereinafter “instant seizure and collection order”) regarding KRW 6,878,340, out of “a claim to be seized” against the Defendant by the Defendant.
On November 30, 2017, the above order was served on the Defendant.
(c)
The defendant was registered as a director in the defendant's company on March 31, 2017 as a corporation engaged in advertising planning, publicity agency, etc.
However, as of June 10, 2019, the Defendant paid C benefits, etc.
There is no details reported to the tax office, and even in the procedure of the seizure and collection order of this case, C is the object of unpaid remuneration.