beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. At the time of July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 3,007,618 with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant deposit”) and KRW 15,683 in total with respect to Yangyang Agricultural Co., Ltd. 3,023,301.
B. Meanwhile, as of July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff was liable for a loan of KRW 4,047,632 to the Defendant.
C. On July 28, 2016, the Plaintiff claimed KRW 1,500,000 among the instant deposits to the Defendant.
Accordingly, the Defendant rejected payment on the ground that there is no balance between the loan claim against the Plaintiff and the deposit claim of this case (hereinafter “instant offset”).
[Judgment of the court below] The ground for recognition is without merit, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 3, and the purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. According to Article 246(1)8 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the scope of the amount of deposits, etc. which cannot be seized is deposits not more than KRW 1,500,000 for each person’s balance of deposits, which is prohibited from seizure, refers to the total amount of deposits of all financial institutions. Thus, the amount of KRW 1,50,000 in proportion to all financial institutions’ deposits constitutes prohibited claim.
The Plaintiff’s deposit was KRW 3,023,301, and among them, the fact that the instant deposit was 3,007,618 is identical as seen earlier. As such, among the instant deposit, the amount prohibited from seizure pursuant to Article 246(1)8 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act is KRW 1,492,218 (=1,50,000 x 3,007,618 (amount of deposit in this case) / 3,023,301 (amount of deposit in all financial institutions) and less than KRW 3,023,301 (amount of deposit in this case).
However, as seen earlier, the Defendant did not respond to the Plaintiff’s claim for deposit payment of KRW 1,500,000 on the ground that the instant deposit and the Plaintiff’s obligation were offset against each other. As such, the Defendant’s claim for deposit payment of KRW 1,492,218, which is prohibited from seizure among the instant deposits, and the Plaintiff’s claim for deposit payment.