Whether the political party subsidy claims against the state of a political party are prohibited from seizure (affirmative)

Money or securities that the State grants to a political party based on the Political Funds Act (hereinafter “political party subsidies”) are granted for the purpose of protecting and fostering a political party and providing financial assistance, i.e., providing a political party subsidies for purposes other than those listed in the Political Funds Act (Article 28(1)4 of the Political Funds Act), and subject to criminal punishment if a political party violates it (Article 47(1)4 of the Political Funds Act). In light of the purpose of the aforementioned political party subsidies, the prohibition of use for purposes other than those, and sanctions against violations of the provisions of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the political party subsidies should be received and settled only between the State and the political party, and thus, the claim for the payment of a political party subsidies to the State of a political party cannot be subject to compulsory execution

Articles 28(1) and 47(1)4 of the Political Funds Act, Articles 223 and 246 of the Civil Execution Act

Supreme Court Order 96Ma1302, 1303 Decided December 24, 1996 (Gong1997Sang, 527) Supreme Court Decision 2006Da33586 Decided April 24, 2008 (Gong2008Sang, 77)

Creditors

○○ Party’s Successor to △△ Party’s Successor

Korea

Seoul Southern District Court Order 2008Ra143 dated September 4, 2008

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds of reappeal are examined as follows.

Money or securities that the State grants to a political party based on the Political Funds Act (hereinafter “political subsidy”) are granted for the purpose of protecting and fostering a political party, i.e., protecting and providing financial assistance. They cannot use a political party subsidy for purposes other than those listed in the Political Funds Act (Article 28(1)4 of the Political Funds Act). If they are violated, they shall be subject to criminal punishment (Article 47(1)4 of the Political Funds Act). In light of the aforementioned legislative purpose and provisions, such as the purpose of a political party subsidy, prohibition of use for other purposes, sanctions against violations, etc., it is reasonable to deem that the political party subsidy should be received and paid only between the State and the political party, and thus, it cannot be subject to compulsory execution (see Supreme Court Order 96Ma1302, 1303, Dec. 24, 196; Supreme Court Order 2006Da3586, Apr. 24, 2008).

The lower court determined that the claim subject to seizure cannot be subject to compulsory execution, as it is a justifiable subsidy payment claim against the debtor against the third debtor under the Political Funds Act, and thus, the request for the seizure and collection order of the instant claim is groundless. In so doing, the lower court revoked the first instance judgment accepting the request for the seizure and collection order of the instant claim, and dismissed the request.

In light of the above legal principles and records, the above judgment of the court below is just and acceptable, and there are no errors in the misapprehension of legal principles as to political party subsidies and claims prohibited from seizure, or in violation of the Constitution, law, order or rule that affected the trial, as otherwise alleged in the grounds for re-appeal.

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

Justices Yang Sung-tae (Presiding Justice)