Whether an offset against the right to claim a return of unjust enrichment, which is deemed as a transformation of the retirement allowance claim, is permitted.

The legal principle is that retirement pay is remuneration received by the employee’s labor as stipulated in Article 579 of the Civil Procedure Act, and the person who exercises the claim according to an assignment order invalidated is a quasi-Possessor of the claim. As such, the non-party union, the garnishee, is exempted from the debt due to the repayment due to the assignment order, and the Plaintiff, the employee, as the result, lost the claim, and the claim for return of unjust enrichment against the execution creditor, should be considered as the claim substantially identical to the retirement allowance due to the transformation of the claim for return of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the set-off claim against the passive claim is not allowed.

Article 579 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 497 of the Civil Act

Plaintiff

Attorney Lee Jae-hoon et al., Counsel for the defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 76Na2593 delivered on February 16, 1977

The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant.

The grounds of appeal by the defendant's attorney are examined.

Since retirement allowances are of the nature of the follow-up wage, it is clear that the "compensation received by the employee's labor" under Article 579 of the Civil Procedure Act is subject to the restriction of seizure, and the court below interpreted that the payment to quasi-Possessors of the claim is valid and the person who exercised the claim pursuant to an assignment order invalidated is regarded as quasi-Possessors of the claim. Thus, the repayment effect due to the assignment order of this case is the effect of payment that the non-party union goes out of its obligation and the plaintiff loses its claim, and thus the plaintiff acquires its claim for return of unjust enrichment. Therefore, the decision of the court below is justified and correct, and the decision of the court below is without merit, and it is not possible to seize the claim for return of unjust enrichment itself, which is discussed in this case, as pointed out above. Therefore, it is desirable to regard it as the same claim as retirement allowances in substance in the sense that the purpose of protection of workers' wage should be thoroughly, and therefore, it is difficult to interpret the Civil Act Article 497 of the Civil Act by analogy and reject the defendant's claim for offset.

It is so decided as per Disposition with the merit of all the arguments.

Justices Kang Jeong-hee (Presiding Justice)