[1] Where the meaning of the language and text stated in the “Indication of Claim to be Attached” in the collection order, and the meaning of the language and text are unclear, the person who shall bear the disadvantage therefrom (i.e., the requesting creditor), / Whether a claim to which a third party obligor may have questions as to whether it was included in the scope of seizure, etc. may be deemed as included in the scope of seizure, etc. (negative in principle)

[2] The purport of Article 246 (1) 4 main sentence and 5 of the Civil Execution Act stipulating "amount equivalent to 1/2 of the wage, pension, salary, bonus, retirement pension and other wage claims of similar nature," and "amount equivalent to 1/2 of retirement allowance and other wage claims of similar nature," as prohibited claims against seizure

[3] Whether the remuneration of directors or retirement allowance for retirement or retirement allowance for retirement under Article 388 of the Commercial Act is also included (affirmative), and whether the right to claim remuneration for directors, etc. of a stock company constitutes a claim to prohibit seizure under Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act (affirmative in principle)

[4] In cases where a retirement pension paid by a retirement pension trustee to directors, etc. who do not correspond to workers under the Labor Standards Act pursuant to the retirement pension scheme established by the company is paid as consideration for the performance of duties while in office as a director, etc., whether the above retirement pension claim constitutes a claim prohibiting seizure of seizure under the main sentence of Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act (affirmative), and the method of determining whether

[5] In a case where a company or a retirement pension trustee concurrently serves as a creditor against a director, etc., whether the scope prohibited from setting-off by the company or retirement pension trustee pursuant to Article 497 of the Civil Act is limited to the right to claim remuneration of a director, etc. and the part of retirement pension claims within a reasonable scope (affirmative)

[6] Whether the effect of repayment under the “deposit of a third party obligor” under Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act arises only from claims included in the subject of seizure (affirmative)

[1] The phrase “the indication of a claim to be seized” stipulated in a collection order shall be objectively strictly interpreted according to the content of the phrase itself. If the meaning of the phrase is unclear, it is reasonable to impose any disadvantage incurred therefrom on the requesting creditor, such as seizure. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, a claim against a third debtor who can have an doubt as to whether it is included in the context of understanding the language based on an average person with ordinary care shall not be deemed to have been included in the subject of seizure, etc.

[2] The main text of Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act provides that “an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the wage, pension, salary, bonus, retirement pension and other wage claims of similar nature” as “an amount equivalent to 1/2 of retirement allowance and other wage claims of similar nature” under subparagraph 5. The purport of Article 246(1) of the Civil Execution Act is as follows. In the event a debtor lives dependent on the economic income that he/she gains on a regular basis while continuing to work, such economic income (including the economic income that takes place on a regular or regular basis after he/she has already become no longer engaged in such a day) is the basis for maintaining his/her livelihood as well as his/her family members. Accordingly, by restricting the exercise of the rights by creditors related thereto, the basic life of the debtor and his/her family members as well as the social and policy consideration that enables him/her to lead a life by guaranteeing work or performing his/her duties and maintaining his/her human dignity.

[3] “Remuneration for directors” under Article 388 of the Commercial Act includes all remuneration paid as compensation for directors’ performance of duties, regardless of the name of monthly salary, bonus, etc., and retirement allowance or retirement consolation benefits also constitute “director’s remuneration” under Article 388 of the Commercial Act. The right to claim remuneration (including a right to claim retirement allowances, etc.) from a director or representative director of a stock company (hereinafter “director, etc.”) shall be deemed prohibited from seizure under Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act, unless there are special circumstances, such as that the remuneration is excessive to the extent that it goes beyond a reasonable level, or that the person exercising it is legally in the position of a stock company, but falls under the so-called nominal director, etc. who does not perform substantial duties as a director, etc.

[4] When a company establishes a retirement pension system to pay wages to retired workers or directors and enters into a contract on the operation and management of retirement pension and asset management with a retirement pension trustee under Article 26 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (hereinafter “retirement pension trustee”), such as banks and insurance companies, etc. (hereinafter “retirement pension trustee”), the director and the representative director (hereinafter “director, etc.”) who have subscribed to the above retirement pension while in office shall have a claim for retirement pension against such retirement pension trustee. Article 7(1) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act does not apply to a claim for retirement pension of a director, etc. which is not a worker under the Labor Standards Act, which prohibits transfer of “right to receive benefits”. However, where such retirement pension can be deemed as a payment for the performance of duties while in office as a director, etc., the claim for retirement pension against the relevant director, etc. for the retirement pension trustee should be deemed as “retirement pension and other benefits claim of a similar nature,” which has been paid or has been paid for the performance of duties under the name of the relevant director’s or other related contents of the retirement pension plan.

[5] In cases where a company or a retirement pension trustee concurrently holds the position of a creditor against a director or a representative director (hereinafter “director, etc.”), when considering the right to claim remuneration and retirement pension claims as prohibited claims under the Civil Execution Act, in light of the right to claim remuneration for directors, etc. and the right to claim remuneration for part beyond the reasonable scope compared to the performance of duties of directors, etc., the scope prohibited by set-off by the company or retirement pension trustee pursuant to Article 497 of the Civil Act should also be deemed to be limited to the right to claim remuneration for directors, etc. and the right to claim retirement pension for retirement pension within the reasonable scope. Furthermore, it is not prohibited that the creditor himself/herself seizure the debtor’s claim against the company or retirement pension trustee by designating the third party debtor as the debtor, the company or retirement pension trustee may file an application for seizure order with the director, etc. as the third party debtor, and at the same time, file an application for the so-called “reduction of prohibited

[6] Inasmuch as deposit by a third party obligor under Article 248(a) of the Civil Execution Act is permitted when all or part of the obligor’s monetary claim against the third party obligor is seized, the effect of repayment due to such deposit shall also be deemed to accrue only to the claim included in the subject of seizure.

[1] Article 225 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 159(1)3 of the Civil Execution Rule / [2] Article 246(1)4 and 5 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Article 388 of the Commercial Act, Article 246(1)4 and 5 of the Civil Execution Act / [4] Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act, Articles 7(1) and 26 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act / [5] Article 38 of the Commercial Act, Article 246(1)4 and 5 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 246(3) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 497 of the Civil Act / [6] Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 2008Da9952 Decided February 10, 201 (Gong2011Sang, 551), Supreme Court Decision 2013Da26296 Decided December 26, 2013 / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da64681 Decided September 26, 203 (Gong2003Ha, 2075), Supreme Court Decision 2012Da98720 Decided May 29, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da236310 Decided July 23, 2015 (Gong2015Ha, 1236), Supreme Court Decision 2015Da213084 Decided September 10, 2015 (Gong2014, 2015Da3681684 Decided September 23, 2015) / [307Da2013848 decided September 2016, 2015)

Plaintiff (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Park Sung-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Han Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm LLC, Attorneys Yang Ho-ho et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Seoul High Court Decision 2015Na8737 decided July 23, 2015

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court. The Defendant’s appeal is dismissed.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The summary and main issues of the instant case

A. The facts of this case and the arguments of the parties are as follows, which are revealed by the reasoning of the judgment below.

(1) SPP Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SPP”) established a defined benefit retirement pension scheme and selected the Defendant, etc. as a retirement pension trustee (operating/asset management agency). On October 1, 2002, the Plaintiff was appointed as the representative director of the non-party company and subscribed to the said retirement pension.

(2) On February 1, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a retirement pension claim against the Defendant by the instant lawsuit (hereinafter referred to as “instant retirement pension claim”) after retirement on February 1, 2013.

(3) The Defendant asserts that a claim for a loan against the Plaintiff is offset against the Plaintiff’s claim for retirement pension of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserts that a set-off against the Defendant’s claim for a retirement pension of this case is prohibited, since seizure is prohibited against 1/2 of the instant retirement pension claims pursuant to Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act. Therefore, the Defendant’s claim for a portion equivalent to 1/2 of the instant retirement pension claims is prohibited.

B. The first instance court rejected the Defendant’s counterclaim of set-off, deeming that the instant retirement pension claim constitutes a claim prohibiting seizure under Article 246(1)5 of the Civil Execution Act. On the contrary, the lower court deemed that the instant retirement pension claim does not constitute a claim prohibiting seizure under Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act, and accepted the Defendant’s counterclaim of set-off.

C. The key issue of the instant case is whether the instant retirement pension claim constitutes a claim prohibiting seizure under Article 246(1)4 or 5 of the Civil Execution Act.

2. As to the Defendant’s ground of appeal on the legality of the instant lawsuit

A. We first examine the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff lost the standing to file a lawsuit seeking performance based on the instant retirement pension claim because there was a seizure and collection order regarding the instant retirement pension claim.

B. The phrase “the indication of a claim to be seized” in the collection order should be objectively strictly interpreted in accordance with the language and text itself. If the meaning of the language and text is unclear, any disadvantage arising therefrom should be borne by the requesting creditor, such as seizure. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, a claim that a third debtor may have an doubt as to whether it is included in the understanding of the language based on an average person with ordinary care should not be deemed included in the subject of seizure, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2008Da9952, Feb. 10, 201; 2013Da26296, Dec. 26, 2013).

C. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the following facts are revealed.

(1) On August 16, 2012, the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch 2012TT 2012T 6732 issued a seizure and collection order against the non-party, the debtor, the plaintiff, and the third debtor, as well as the defendant, and served on the defendant on August 16, 2012. The phrase “the indication of claims to be seized and collected” in the above seizure and collection order includes the following: “The amount of claims to be seized and collected by the debtor among the following deposit claims against the third debtor, which are deposited or to be deposited in the future, until they reach the above claim amount.” The following is indicated as the phrase “where multiple kinds of deposits exist, the amount shall be attached and all by the following order: (a) a fixed deposit, (b) a periodical deposit, (c) a fixed deposit, (f) a separate deposit, (f) a deposit, (h) a MMDA, a trust deposit, (l) a trust deposit, and a sale deposit.”

(2) On April 7, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 14,091,867 with the Busan District Court Branch of the Dong Branch of the Busan District Court deposited KRW 721 in 2014, and “the fact of the cause of deposit” stated that the “the fact of the cause of deposit” is that the depositor, who is the garnishee, is liable to pay the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff in this case), who is the seizure obligor, to the Plaintiff (the Plaintiff in this case), who is the seizure obligor, but the seizure of the obligee (a seizure obligee) against the Plaintiff’s above claim was concurrent as follows.

(3) The instant defined benefit retirement pension was established under a trust agreement.

D. Examining the above facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the object of the above seizure and collection order is limited to deposit claims, and deeming that the Plaintiff’s claims for the retirement pension of this case were seized with the statement of the language thereof would suffice for doubt in light of the social average person with ordinary care. In addition, in light of the legal nature of the “deposit” and “trust” differs (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da64552, Nov. 29, 2007), it is difficult to view that the “trust deposit” is listed as one type of “deposit” in the “Indication of claims to be seized and collected” under the above seizure and collection order, and it includes the “trust deposit” and the “final benefit retirement pension for the Plaintiff stored in the Defendant as a trust deed.”

Therefore, the effect of the above seizure and collection order cannot be deemed to extend to the claim of the retirement pension of this case.

In addition, even upon examining the record, there is no evidence to deem that there was a collection order for the seizure and collection of the retirement pension of this case as the seized claim.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. As to the plaintiff's assertion that the retirement pension claim of this case constitutes prohibited claims under the Civil Execution Act

A. (1) Article 497 of the Civil Act prohibits set-off against a passive claim, which is prohibited from seizure.

(2) The main text of Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act provides that “an amount equivalent to 1/2 of wages, pensions, salaries, bonuses, retirement annuities, and other wage claims of similar nature” shall be “amount equivalent to 1/2 of retirement allowances and other wage claims of similar nature” as a claim subject to prohibition of seizure. The purport of Article 246(1)5 is as follows. In cases of a debtor who lives dependent on the economic income that he/she gains on a regular basis while continuing to work, such economic income (including the economic income that takes place on a regular or regular basis after he/she does not longer engage in such work) shall be the basis for maintaining his/her livelihood as well as his/her family members. Accordingly, by restricting the exercise of the rights by creditors related thereto, the basic life of the debtor and his/her family members as well as the social and policy consideration that enables him/her to lead a life by guaranteeing work or performing his/her duties and maintaining his/her human dignity.

(3) “Remuneration for directors” under Article 388 of the Commercial Act includes, regardless of the name of monthly salary, bonus, etc., all remuneration paid as compensation for the performance of duties of directors. Retirement allowances or retirement consolation benefits also constitute “compensation for directors” under Article 388 of the Commercial Act (see Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da64681, Sept. 26, 2003; 2012Da98720, May 29, 2014). The right to claim remuneration (including a right to claim retirement allowances, etc.; hereinafter the same shall apply) of a director, representative director (hereinafter “director, etc.”) of a stock company (including a right to claim compensation for retirement allowances, etc.) is excessive beyond the reasonable level of remuneration to the extent that it considerably loses balance among the directors (see Supreme Court Decisions 2015Da21308, Sept. 10, 2015; 2015Da38184, Dec. 18, 2016).

First, Article 579 Subparag. 4 of the former Civil Procedure Act (amended by Act No. 4201 of Jan. 13, 1990) provides that “an amount not exceeding 1/2 of the remuneration that a worker receives due to his/her labor service or the assistance fees of his/her bereaved family members” as a claim to be prohibited from seizure. However, as the above provision was amended on January 13, 1990, the phrase “the amount received due to his/her labor service” was deleted, and “an amount equivalent to 1/2 of the wage, pension, salary, bonus, retirement allowance, retirement pension, and other benefits claims of similar nature” was defined as a claim to be prohibited from seizure. The above provision was enacted on January 26, 200, and its term “other benefits claims of similar nature” was defined as “other benefits claims of similar nature” under Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act, and it is not widely distinguishable from the language and text of the Labor Standards Act’s provision that does not apply mutatis mutandis to the labor relationship.

Second, it cannot be deemed that the social and policy consideration of the debtor is unnecessary solely on the ground that the debtor was a director, etc. or his/her claim for benefits, such as a director, etc., based on the delegation relation. The relevant director, etc. can be deemed as an employee under the Labor Standards Act (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da64681, Sept. 26, 2003; 2009Du1440, Aug. 20, 2009). Rather, determination of whether it constitutes a claim for prohibition of seizure under the Civil Execution Act is more consistent with the legislative intent as seen earlier, regardless of the legal nature of the contract that serves as the basis for economic income, inasmuch as it is necessary to reflect the reality that the maintenance of livelihood of the citizens in a rapidly changing modern society does not necessarily constitute an employee under the Labor Standards Act, but through a variety of contracts.

(4) When a company establishes a retirement pension system to pay wages to retired workers or directors, etc. and enters into a contract for the operation and management of retirement pension and asset management with a retirement pension trustee prescribed in Article 26 of the Guarantee of Workers' Retirement Benefits Act (hereinafter “retirement pension trustee”), such as banks and insurance companies, etc. (hereinafter “retirement pension trustee”), directors, etc. who have subscribed to the above retirement pension while in office and retired from office shall have a claim for retirement pension against such retirement pension trustee. Article 7(1) of the Guarantee of Workers’ Retirement Benefits Act stipulating prohibition against transfer of “the right to receive the retirement pension system” does not apply to claims for retirement pension of directors, etc. who do not fall under workers under the Labor Standards Act (Supreme Court Decision 2015Da24333 Decided December 1, 2016). However, where such retirement pension is deemed to have been paid or paid as remuneration for performing duties while in office, the determination of whether a company received the retirement pension under the name of the relevant director’s retirement pension and its nature should be made by comprehensively taking into account the details and contents of the relevant retirement pension’s retirement pension or its payment into account.

(5) Under the Civil Execution Act and its Enforcement Decree, there are provisions to protect creditors who may suffer disadvantage by stipulating certain claims as claims to be prohibited from seizure, and the legal principles based on these provisions are also formed. It should be deemed that the pertinent claims to be prohibited from seizure are equally applicable to cases where the claims to claim remuneration against directors, etc. or retirement pension claims against retirement pension trustee against retirement pension trustee.

First, Article 246(1)4 main text and Article 246(1)5 of the Civil Execution Act provides that the amount equivalent to “1/2” among the relevant wage claims shall not be seized. In addition, the latter part of the proviso of Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act provide that if the amount equivalent to one half of the relevant wage claims (referring to the amount calculated on a monthly basis) exceeds three million won per month, the sum of the amount equivalent to one half of the relevant wage claims shall not be all in excess, and the amount equivalent to three million won per month shall be prohibited from seizure. In addition, Article 5 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act provides that when calculating the maximum amount prohibited from seizure as above, if a debtor receives benefits from a large number of employees or receives various kinds of benefits from a large number of employees, the sum of the amount should be prescribed as the wage claims so that it may not be added to such cases.

As to the part prohibited from seizure, a creditor may make a provisional disposition against a director, etc. such as a right to claim remuneration or a retirement pension claim against a retirement pension trustee under the latter part of Article 246(3) of the Civil Execution Act by filing an application for a seizure order at the same time or after filing an application for a seizure order. In such cases, a court of execution may make a provisional disposition such as ordering a creditor to provide security and to continue the execution thereof prior to the judgment on the case (Articles 246(4), 196(3), and 16(2) of the Civil Execution Act).

Meanwhile, in cases where a company or a retirement pension trustee concurrently holds the position of a creditor against a director, etc., the exercise of the director, etc.’s right to claim remuneration and retirement pension claims is restricted in the part beyond the reasonable scope as compared with the director’s duties under the Civil Execution Act (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da21308, Sept. 10, 2015; Supreme Court Decision 2014Da11888, Jan. 28, 2016). In addition, in light of Article 497 of the Civil Act, the scope prohibited from offsetting the company or retirement pension trustee’s right to claim remuneration and the portion of retirement pension claims, which are limited to the right to claim remuneration of the director, etc. and the amount of retirement pension claims within the reasonable scope. In addition, since a creditor himself/herself is not prohibited from seizing the debtor’s claims on his/her own with a third debtor, and thus, the company or retirement pension trustee may file an application for a reduction in remuneration with the relevant debtor and the pertinent third party.

B. According to the evidence duly admitted by the court below, the following facts are revealed.

(1) According to the rules on final benefit retirement pension of the non-party company, the purpose of the above retirement pension system is to contribute to the stable livelihood of workers (Article 1), and the target of subscription is a person who provides labor and receives wages regardless of his/her position (Article 8), acquires eligibility for membership on the day he/she becomes an employee (Article 10), and the eligibility for membership upon the termination of an employment relationship with the employer (Article 11 subparag. 2).

(2) However, among the retirement benefits that the non-party company selected and accumulated the defendant as a retirement pension trustee, the part of the retirement pension in this case is included.

(3) The non-party company withheld income tax of KRW 56,100,530 and local income tax of KRW 5,610,050 on the retirement pension of this case.

C. Therefore, the lower court should have examined the circumstances leading up to the entry of the Plaintiff, the representative director, the articles of incorporation of the non-party company, the board of directors, the resolution of the general meeting of shareholders, the existence and content of the non-party company’s duties related thereto, the content and nature of the Plaintiff’s practical duties, the amount of retirement pension claimed by the Plaintiff considerably excessive exceeding the reasonable level compared to the Plaintiff’s duties, whether the non-party company has been paid or has been paid as retirement benefits or retirement compensation, etc. in addition to the instant retirement pension, the existence and amount of other benefits paid or to be paid by the Defendant, etc. or other financial institutions to the Plaintiff as retirement pension, and the equity of the non-party company’s other benefits received as retirement benefits or retirement pension, etc. Based on this, the lower court should have determined that the instant retirement pension constitutes a claim subject to prohibition of seizure under Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act

Nevertheless, the lower court determined that the claim of the instant retirement pension does not constitute a claim subject to prohibition of seizure under the Civil Execution Act on the ground that the Plaintiff does not constitute a worker under the Labor Standards Act, without thoroughly examining the aforementioned circumstances, on the erroneous premise that the remuneration that a director, etc., entrusted with the company, under Article 246(1)4 and 5 of the Civil Execution Act, is a provision on the premise of the employee’s remuneration for the management of delegated affairs. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the claim subject to prohibition of seizure under Article 246(1)4 and 5 of the Civil Execution Act, thereby failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations. The allegation contained in the grounds

4. As to the defendant's remaining grounds of appeal

A. The Defendant asserts as follows with respect to the defense of set-off. ① As of February 15, 2013, the Defendant’s notice of set-off was deemed not around March 31, 2014, but as of February 15, 2013, the date when the Plaintiff reaches the Plaintiff, the lower court erred by misapprehending the basic terms and conditions for bank credit transactions, which constitute a special agreement on the retroactive effect of set-off, and by misapprehending the legal principles as to the point when set-off takes effect, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. ② The lower court and the first instance court acknowledged that the amount was settled as of March 31, 2014 as the amount of the retirement pension of this case, the lower court erred by misapprehending that the Defendant was the amount of retirement benefits to be paid in lump sum to the Plaintiff as of February 15, 2013, and by determining the amount of claims extinguished by set-off. Accordingly, the lower court erred by failing to exercise its right of explanation and thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment.

However, this is a new argument that the defendant should only reach the final appeal, and it was not asserted before the closing of argument in the original trial, and it is not an ex officio investigation. Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument cannot be a legitimate ground for appeal.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the lower court erred by failing to exercise its right of explanation, which affected the conclusion of the judgment regarding the assertion of extinguishment of the obligation due to deposit.

Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in relation to this, the defendant asserted that the above amount was extinguished on the ground that the court of first instance and the court below deposited KRW 14,091,867 out of the retirement pension bonds of this case in accordance with Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act. The court below rejected the defendant's defense on the ground that there is no evidence to acknowledge that the dividend procedure based on the above deposit has been completed.

However, the deposit of a third party obligor under Article 248(a) of the Civil Execution Act is permitted when all or part of the obligor's monetary claim against the third party obligor is seized. Therefore, the effect of repayment upon such deposit shall be deemed to be limited to the claim included in the subject of seizure.

As seen earlier, it cannot be deemed that the effect of the seizure and collection order of the instant retirement pension does not extend to the claim of the instant retirement pension even after examining the record. Rather, according to the records, the Defendant deposited KRW 14,091,867 on April 7, 2014 with the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch Order No. 721, which deposited KRW 14,091,867 on April 7, 2014. The Defendant himself/herself stated that the attachment of the Plaintiff’s “deposit claim” against the Defendant was concurrent and deposited as the third obligor. Accordingly, even if the deposit claim included in the object of seizure can be extinguished according to the Defendant’s deposit, the claim of the instant retirement pension not included in the object of seizure should not be deemed extinguished notwithstanding the above deposit.

The judgment of the court below on this part cannot be deemed appropriate on the premise that the retirement pension claim of this case can be extinguished through the above deposit by the defendant, but it cannot be deemed that the court below is obligated to exercise the right of explanation as to the termination of the distribution procedure irrelevant to the extinguishment of the retirement pension claim of this case. Thus, the defendant's ground of appeal on this part cannot be accepted.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the part of the judgment below against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. The defendant's appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices

Justices Kim Jae-hyung (Presiding Justice)