[1] Whether a claim on oil subsidies granted by a local government to a passenger transport service provider within the jurisdiction under the pretext of subsidizing the increased amount of oil tax on the basis of the former Passenger Transport Service Act, etc. is prohibited from seizure (affirmative)

[2] Whether an offset against a claim for return of unjust enrichment, which is a modified claim for oil subsidies, may be permitted (negative)

[1] Articles 223 and 246 of the Civil Execution Act, Articles 51 (see current Article 50), and 52 (see current Article 51) of the former Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Act No. 8980, Mar. 21, 2008); Article 86-2 (see current Article 94) of the former Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act (amended by Ordinance of the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs No. 66, Nov. 6, 2008) / [2] Article 497 of the Civil Act; Articles 223 and 246 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Order 96Ma1302, 1303 Decided December 24, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 527), Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33586 Decided April 24, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 777), Supreme Court Order 2008Ma1440 Decided January 28, 2009 (Gong2009Sang, 204) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 77Da309 Decided May 24, 197 (Gong1977, 10147)

Plaintiff, Ltd.

Defendant 1 and five others (Attorney Lee Im-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court ( Jeju) Decision 2007Na1106 decided October 1, 2008

All appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The instant oil subsidies provided by a local government to a passenger transport service provider under the name of the Minister of Construction and Transportation established pursuant to Article 51 of the Passenger Transport Service Act (hereinafter referred to as the "Act") and Article 86-2 of the Enforcement Rule of the Passenger Transport Service Act for the purpose of promoting the smooth transport of passengers and passenger transport service by reducing the financial burden of the passenger transport service provider in light of the purpose of the system, the purpose of the system, the prohibition of the use of Article 52 of the Act, the supervision of the competent authorities, the measures of recovery in the same manner as delinquent national or local taxes are imposed, etc., and it is paid to achieve the public purpose in order to promote the smooth transport of passengers and passenger transport service by reducing the financial burden of the passenger transport service provider. It is not for the purpose of compensating the actual loss of the transport service provider directly, but for the purpose of compensating for the traffic convenience of the people through the provision of the transport service in the future, and thus, it is reasonable to have been subject to seizure of 136.16.36

In the same purport, the judgment of the court below that the oil subsidy claim of the plaintiff against Jeju constitutes a claim prohibiting seizure is just, and there is no violation of law such as misunderstanding of legal principles as argued in the Grounds for Appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The seizure collection order for the oil subsidy claim prohibited from seizure is invalid. However, the debtor's bona fide and invalid seizure collection order without negligence is effective as repayment to the quasi-Possessor of the claim. Accordingly, the debtor is exempted from the obligation, and the creditor obtains the unjust enrichment return claim against the third party who received repayment instead of losing the claim. Since the unjust enrichment return claim is a modification of the oil subsidy claim, it shall be deemed that it is substantially the same claim. Thus, set-off against the same claim shall not be allowed by analogical application of Article 497 of the Civil Act, which prescribes the prohibition of set-off against the claim prohibited from seizure, which is prohibited from seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 77Da309 delivered on May 24, 197, etc.).

In the same purport, the court below is just in rejecting the defendants' counterclaim, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as otherwise alleged in the grounds of appeal. The Supreme Court decision cited in the grounds of appeal does not relate to claims prohibited from seizure, and thus, cannot

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Young-ran (Presiding Justice)