The case holding that the debtor may be punished as a violation of the Civil Execution Act even if the debtor's judgment in favor of the debtor became final and conclusive in a lawsuit of objection against a claim against the payment order, in case where the debtor of the finalized payment order submits a false list of properties in the procedure

If a debtor submits a false list of properties in the property specification procedure with the title of execution of a final and conclusive payment order, the case holding that even if a lawsuit of objection against the above payment order was filed prior to the commencement of the procedure for property specification, and the lawsuit of objection against the above claim became final and conclusive after the submission of the property list, the debtor did not take measures to suspend or restrict compulsory execution based on the above payment order, such as filing a provisional disposition under Article 46(2) of the Civil Execution Act, and the validity of the judgment in favor of the debtor in the lawsuit of objection against the above claim is not retroactive, the debtor may be punished as a violation of the Civil Execution Act by submitting a false list of properties.

Article 68 (9) of the Civil Execution Act

Defendant

Mag-gu

Attorney Jeong Ho-ho

Defendant shall be punished by a fine of KRW 300,000.

When the defendant fails to pay the above fine, the defendant shall be confined in a workhouse for the period converted by 50,000 won into one day.

On July 26, 2004, the Defendant submitted a list of property of the Defendant in the above court in relation to the obligation to refund the lease deposit amount of KRW 20 million to the river in Busan District Court 307, Dong-dong Busan District Court, Busan District Court 307, 2004, when the Defendant submitted a list of property of KRW 94,530 on a monthly basis from the National Pension Management Corporation for an old age pension. On November 13, 2002, the Defendant had the income to be regularly paid KRW 94,530 on a monthly basis from the National Pension Management Corporation for an old age pension, and on November 13, 2002, he was given free of charge to the Defendant’s wife on the 625-3 site in Busan Dong-dong, Busan District Court 307, 200, by omitting the current status of the above payment and disposition and failing to report it

1. Defendant's legal statement;

1. Statement of the police statement with respect to a stronger;

1. Statement of specified date;

1. Article applicable to criminal facts;

Article 68(9) of the Civil Execution Act (Selection of Fine)

1. Invitation of a workhouse;

Articles 70 and 69(2) of the Criminal Act

Although it is true that the defendant submitted a false list of property in the procedure for specification of property, the defendant filed a lawsuit of objection against a claim, and the judgment became final and conclusive at that time, and the compulsory execution based on the original copy of the payment order, which is the executive title that requires the commencement of the procedure for specification of property, is prohibited, so the defendant asserts that there is no obligation to institute the prosecution of this case,

In the case where the debtor fails to fulfill his monetary obligation based on a specific executive title, the court has the debtor submit a list of property specifying the property relationship subject to compulsory execution and take an oath against the truth of the list of property. The debtor files an objection after being ordered to specify the property, or appears on the date of specification of the property, and submit the list of property and take an oath.

After receiving the order to specify the property, the Defendant, who is a strong debtor, filed a lawsuit of demurrer on the ground that there is no obligation, and filed a provisional disposition suspending enforcement, and submitted the document under Article 49, subparagraph 2 of the Civil Execution Act to suspend the continuation of the procedure for specification of property.

In addition, as a lawsuit for raising an objection to a claim, the effect of the alteration of right that should be decided and decided by the judgment becomes effective in the future as a lawsuit for raising an objection to claim. In other words, even if the judgment was rendered in favor of the defendant in a lawsuit for raising an objection and the judgment became final and conclusive, the procedure for specification of property cannot be retroactively invalidated.

Therefore, the Defendant submitted a false list of property without raising an objection against a court order to specify the property based on the established payment order, solely on the ground that the Defendant did not have a debt against the strong order. Therefore, the Defendant’s assertion that there is no obligation to specify property is without merit

Judges Kim Shin