Plaintiff

Republic of Korea (Attorney Jeong-ju, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2011Gaso242538 Decided May 24, 2012

September 20, 2012

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,00,000 won with 20% interest per annum from November 12, 201 to the day of complete payment.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court case No. 2010Da484417 against the Nonparty, was issued a seizure and collection order as to the amount equivalent to KRW 700,023,120, out of the transmission subsidy claim that the Nonparty received to the Defendant each month as the Nonparty’s obligor, the garnishee, and the third obligor, as the Defendant, of the above court No. 201TT No. 37766, the third obligor, and the Nonparty was the owner of an important intangible cultural heritage No. 23. 23.

B. The instant collection order was served on October 10, 201 to the Defendant, the garnishee, who was the garnishee.

【Facts without dispute over the grounds for recognition, entry of Gap's evidence 1 through 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination as to the claim of this case

In light of the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, the collection obligee based on the collection order of this case, the collection obligee according to the above collection order, the amount of KRW 1,000,000, which the plaintiff seeks as the lawsuit of this case, and its delay damages.

B. Judgment on the defendant's argument

The defendant asserts that the non-party's claim for transmission subsidy against the non-party's defendant is invalid since the non-party who is the holder of important intangible cultural heritage is merely paying expenses incurred in transmission support training to transmit and preserve important intangible cultural heritage pursuant to Article 41 of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act.

However, Article 41(2) and (3) of the Cultural Heritage Protection Act provides that the Administrator of the Cultural Heritage Administration shall require the owner of the relevant important intangible cultural heritage to provide education for transfer of skills or artistic talent in order to transmit and preserve the important intangible cultural heritage, and that the State or a local government shall bear the expenses necessary for the above transfer training within budgetary limits. According to such provision, transmission subsidy is paid to the owner of important intangible cultural heritage in order to protect and foster important intangible cultural heritage. However, in light of the fact that a person who receives transmission subsidy under the relevant Act and subordinate statutes does not prohibit him/her from using it for any purpose other than its original purpose, and that there is no provision on the recovery thereof, it is difficult to see that the transmission subsidy claim does not become subject to compulsory execution due to its nature. Accordingly, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

C. Sub-committee

Ultimately, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 1,00,000 with the collection money and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from November 12, 201 to the date of full payment, which is obviously a day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, so the plaintiff's appeal is accepted and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the above decision is ordered to pay the above money to the defendant. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Tae-sung (Presiding Judge)