1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff did not pay national health insurance premiums to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant seized the Plaintiff’s deposit claim of KRW 693,020 against the financial institution in accordance with the National Health Insurance Act and the National Tax Collection Act in order to collect delinquent national health insurance premiums, and collected the amount on November 18, 2009.

C. There was no other deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s financial institution at the time of the above seizure.

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1-1-4 of Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. Article 31 subparag. 13 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 26 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act prohibit seizure by deeming that each individual’s balance of less than 1.2 million won is a small financial property necessary to maintain the livelihood of the delinquent taxpayer.

B. The above seizure against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the financial institution is an attachment of the property prohibited from seizure, and is null and void due to a grave and apparent defect.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above money collected through the above seizure procedure to the plaintiff as unjust enrichment.

C. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff’s right to national health insurance premiums offsets the Plaintiff’s right to return unjust enrichment against the Defendant to the extent on an equal basis.

However, the National Tax Collection Act prohibits the seizure of a specific property among the property of a delinquent in the national health insurance premium under the National Tax Collection Act is a mandatory provision that prevents a delinquent from compulsory execution against the minimum property necessary for the maintenance of his/her livelihood. If the defendant's aforementioned offset is permitted, it is contrary to the purport of the above provision, and the defendant's defense is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant is deemed to be a malicious beneficiary pursuant to Article 749(2) of the Civil Act with respect to the above collected money from the plaintiff 693,020 won, and the date of the first instance judgment from June 12, 2014, which is the date of the filing of the lawsuit in this case, which is the date of the first instance judgment.