Whether the subject of the law on fair collection of claims is limited to natural debtors (affirmative), and whether the law on fair collection of claims applies to corporate obligations (negative)

Article 1 and Article 2 subparagraph 2 of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act

[Re-Appellant]

Law Firm Barun Law LLC, Attorneys Kim Tae-tae et al.

Seoul High Court Order 2017 Elementary District Court Order 2647 dated August 8, 2017

The dismissal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (hereinafter “Claims Collection Act”) aims at preventing debt collectors from abusing their rights or using unlawful means, creating a fair climate for debt collection, and protecting the obligor’s decent life and peaceful life by guaranteeing creditors’ legitimate exercise of rights (Article 1). The term “debtor” under the Claims Collection Act refers to a natural person (including a guarantor) who is alleged to have an obligation to repay a debt or an obligation to repay a debt from a debt collector (Article 2 Subparag. 2). As such, the Debt Collection Act limits the subject of protection to a natural person and excludes a corporate debtor, the Debt Collection Act does not apply to a corporate debt.

In light of the records, even if the grounds alleged as grounds for re-appeal are examined, there is no violation of the Constitution, Act, order or rule that affected the judgment.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Chang-suk (Presiding Justice)