1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Basic Facts

A. The Plaintiff filed a claim for reimbursement against A, etc. as Seoul Central District Court 2010dan91877.

On May 28, 2010, the above court rendered a ruling that “A shall pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay of KRW 114,701,915 and KRW 113,960,145 among them,” and the above ruling was finalized on June 23, 2010.

B. On June 16, 2016, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order as to A’s wage claim against A with the amount claimed as KRW 50,000,000 based on the above final judgment, under the Suwon District Court’s Ansan Branch 2016TT 103066, and the Plaintiff served the Defendant on June 21, 2016 with respect to the above claim seizure and collection order.

(hereinafter “the collection order of this case”). The seizure and the indication of the claim to be collected stated in the collection order of this case are as shown in the attached list.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the plaintiff asserted the purport of the whole pleadings, according to the collection order of this case, the plaintiff claims payment of KRW 50 million among the defendant's wage claims, and damages for delay.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that since the Gap's salary does not exceed KRW 1.5 million per month, the whole amount constitutes the claim prohibited from seizure under the Civil Execution Act and subordinate statutes, and that there is no part that the plaintiff can collect.

Judgment

A. According to the proviso of Article 246(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Civil Execution Act, where the wage claim is less than KRW 1.5 million per month, the entire wage claim shall not be seized. This is a mandatory provision.

An order of seizure against such claims subject to prohibition of seizure is null and void because it violates a mandatory provision, and is null and void as a collection order based on invalid seizure order under substantive law.

On the other hand, if the creditor files a lawsuit claiming the collection of the benefit claim against the third debtor based on the seizure and collection order, the creditor does not constitute the claim subject to prohibition of seizure.