The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff receives a monthly basic pension from the Seo-gu Busan Metropolitan Government Office to the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff.

B. The Defendant received a claim attachment and collection order from the Busan District Court Branch Branch Branch of Busan District Court 2018TTY 9807 on the above deposit account.

C. On January 9, 2019, the Defendant collected KRW 896,340 from the foregoing deposit account based on the execution procedure according to the execution order of the above seizure and collection order.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The above amount of money that the defendant argued by the plaintiff constitutes a basic pension that is prohibited from seizure under the Civil Execution Act, and thus, the above seizure and collection by the defendant was conducted unfairly without any legal ground in violation of relevant Acts and subordinate statutes.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the plaintiff the above 896,340 won collected by the defendant as unjust enrichment and the delay damages therefor.

B. Where the subject matter 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 that it does not affect the prohibition of seizure with respect to the third debtor's deposit claim against the financial institution, since the nature of the money deposited into the relevant deposit at the time of the issuance of the seizure order is the subject matter of the claim to be prohibited from seizure or the amount of the claim to be prohibited from seizure if two money are mixed. In order to realize prompt execution of the claim promptly, the seized claim shall be judged formally and uniformly at the seizure stage. Therefore, if the subject matter of the claim to be prohibited from seizure is deposited into the

Supreme Court Decision 199 delivered on December 1, 1996