[1] Whether a school foundation's subsidy claim against the state and local government is prohibited from seizure (affirmative)

[2] In a case where the object of the prohibition of seizure is deposited in the debtor's deposit account, whether the prohibition of seizure of the deposit claim has the effect on the deposit claim (negative)

[3] The debtor protection method where the object of the claim prohibited from seizure is deposited in the debtor's deposit account

[4] Whether a compulsory execution against a property belonging to the accounts of school expenses is appropriate under the legal nature (regulation) of Article 29 of the Private School Act and a title of debt to a school juristic person (affirmative)

[1] Subsidies granted to support private school education as deemed necessary for the promotion of education by the State or a local government pursuant to Article 43(1) of the Private School Act and Article 22(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies, etc., which are prohibited from being used for purposes other than their original purposes, shall be provided and settled only between the State or a local government and the school foundation in light of the purpose or nature of the funds. As such, the subsidies granted shall be deemed prohibited

[2] Where the object of the claim to be prohibited from seizure is deposited into the debtor's deposit account, the claim shall lose the identity with the previous claim by changing it into the debtor's deposit claim against the financial institution, and the seizure order shall be made without the debtor's examination, so it cannot be seen as the object of the claim to be prohibited from seizure or the amount which does not correspond to it, and if two money are mixed, the amount of the claim to be prohibited from seizure among the amount of the deposit can not be classified. In order to realize prompt execution of the claim, it shall be determined formally and uniformly at the seizure stage, and where the object of the claim to be prohibited from seizure is deposited into the debtor's deposit account, the seizure order shall not affect the debtor's deposit claims against the third debtor's financial institution.

[3] The original purpose of prohibition of seizure should be taken into consideration even if the object of prohibition of seizure was deposited in the debtor's deposit account and its deposit claim no longer has the effect of prohibition of seizure. In such a case, the debtor's protection should be cancelled in a way that the court applies Article 579-2 of the Civil Procedure Act at the debtor's request in consideration of the debtor's living conditions and other circumstances.

[4] Article 29 of the Private School Act provides that, for the purpose of promoting the sound development of private schools, the accounts of the school juristic person shall be divided into the accounts belonging to the school established and operated by the school juristic person and the accounts belonging to the business of the juristic person, and the revenues belonging to the accounts of school expenses among the school accounting shall not be transferred to or lent to other accounts. However, this is merely a regulation that regulates the internal relations of the school juristic person in question, but it cannot be deemed an effective regulation that regulates the internal relations of the school juristic person in question, and therefore, the compulsory execution against the pertinent school juristic person's property belonging to the accounts of

[1] Articles 57 and 579 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 43(1) of the Private School Act, Article 22(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies / [2] Articles 557 and 579 of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Articles 57, 579, and 579-2 of the Civil Procedure Act / [4] Articles 557 and 579 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 29 of the Private School Act

[3] Supreme Court Decision 73Da1741 delivered on July 16, 1974 (Gong1974, 7986), Supreme Court Decision 86Meu2389 delivered on March 24, 1987 (Gong1987, 725), Supreme Court Decision 91Ma29 delivered on May 20, 191 (Gong1991, 1894)

Red lines;

Gwangju District Court Order 96Ra2, 3 dated July 3, 1996

The order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the Gwangju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

1. According to the records, the re-appellant (creditor) is a teacher of a middle school established and operated by the obligor high school foundation and established and operated by the obligor high school foundation and dismissed the re-appellant's claim from June 1, 1992 to May 31, 1994, wages of 50,282,730 won from June 1, 1994 and damages for delay from June 16, 1994 to the full payment date. The Gwangju District Court ordered the obligor to pay the final judgment from June 16, 1994 to the third party obligor under the name of the obligor's name and the third party obligor's deposit claim against the obligor's third party obligor's cancellation of the termination middle school under the name of the obligor's high school foundation. The court below determined that the above part of the government's expenditure budget cannot be subject to seizure or collection order from among the above part of the government's deposit claims under the provisions of Article 43 (1) of the Private School Act, which is prohibited from being transferred to the obligor's deposit claim.

2. (a) The subsidy granted in order to support private school education as deemed necessary for the promotion of education by the State or local governments pursuant to Article 43(1) of the Private School Act, Article 22(1) of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies, etc., and which is prohibited from being used for any purpose other than its original purpose, should be received and settled only between the State or local governments in light of the purpose or nature of the subsidy, and thus, the subsidy granted should be deemed prohibited from transferring due to its nature, and thus,

However, the claims subject to seizure of this case are claims against the debtor's third debtor's cancellation agricultural cooperative, not themselves, and there are deposits with the State or local governments in the deposit account. However, where the claims subject to prohibition of seizure are deposited in the debtor's deposit account, the claims are changed to the debtor's deposit claims against the financial institution and lose the identity of the previous claims, and the seizure order is made without the debtor's examination (Article 560 of the Civil Procedure Act). If the nature of the money deposited in the deposit at the time of the issuance of the seizure order is the subject of the claims subject to prohibition of seizure or the corresponding amount, or if the two are mixed, the amount of the claims subject to prohibition of seizure among the deposit amount can not be kept. In order to rapidly execute the execution of claims, it is reasonable to view that the seizure order does not affect the creditor's deposit claims against the third debtor's financial institution.

Therefore, among the deposit claims of this case, the part on which the above subsidy was deposited shall not be deemed to be prohibited from seizure.

However, in case where the claim subject to prohibition of seizure has been deposited into a deposit, the original purpose of prohibition of seizure should be taken into consideration for the deposit claim, and the protection of the debtor in such case should be done by the court to cancel the seizure order in whole or in part upon request of the debtor by taking into account the debtor's living conditions and other circumstances.

On the other hand, the court below cited the claim of this case as one of the grounds for holding that a subsidy may not be subject to seizure under the provisions of Article 35 of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies even in cases where the subsidy was paid to banks as in this case. However, Article 35 of the Act on the Budgeting and Management of Subsidies provides that "the subsidy program operator shall not use, transfer, exchange, or lend, or provide as a security, important property prescribed by the Presidential Decree as acquired by the subsidy or its utility increased by the subsidy, in violation of the purpose of granting the subsidy without the approval of the head of the central government agency, even after the completion of the subsidy program," and Article 15 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which provides important property delegated to the above Presidential Decree, provides that "1. real estate, its accessory property, 2. vessel, floating bridge, floating bridge, floating bridge, and its accessory property, 3. Aircraft, or any other central government agency's property deemed particularly necessary in order to achieve the purpose of granting the subsidy." However, the deposit deposit shall not be interpreted as important property under Article 35 of the Act.

Therefore, among the deposit claims of this case, the part of which the above subsidy was deposited shall be subject to seizure. However, the court below held that the above part of the deposit claims of this case shall be prohibited from seizure on the ground that it should be received and settled only between the State and the local government and the school juristic person in light of its purpose or nature. Therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the claim prohibited from seizure, which affected the decision. It is reasonable to discuss the purport of pointing this out.

B. In addition, Article 29 of the Private School Act provides that, for the purpose of promoting the sound development of a private school, the accounts of the school foundation shall be divided into accounts belonging to the school established and operated by the school foundation and accounts belonging to the business of the corporation (Paragraph 1), and the income belonging to the accounts of the school foundation shall not be transferred to or lent to other accounts (Paragraph 6). However, it is only a regulation that regulates the internal relations of the school foundation in question, and it cannot be deemed a regulation that regulates the internal relations of the school foundation in question and cannot be seen as an effective regulation that has strongness in external relations. Thus, the compulsory execution against the pertinent school foundation that does not belong to the accounts of school expenses shall not be deemed null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 73Da1741, Jul. 16, 197; 86Meu2389, Mar. 24, 1987; 91Ma29, May 20, 1991).

Therefore, the Re-Appellant may seize the part of the instant deposit claim, other than the subsidy, which belongs to the debtor's school expense account in the name of the debtor's debt with the final judgment rendered against the debtor's school juristic person. Accordingly, the court below held that the deposit claim other than the subsidy, in the instant deposit claim, constitutes a claim prohibited from seizure due to its nature, shall be deemed to have committed an unlawful act which affected the decision by misunderstanding the legal principles on the claim prohibited from seizure or by misunderstanding the law on the claim prohibited from seizure.

3. Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)