logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원김포시법원 2019.01.23 2018가단2213
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s enforcement of the collection money case against the Plaintiff at the Incheon District Court Branch Kimpo-si, 2013j2460, Kimpo-si, Kimpo-si.

Reasons

1. The defendant is the non-party D's creditor. On February 9, 2011, the plaintiff is the debtor to return the lease deposit that entered into a lease contract with the government E-Ba on five million won (400,000 won per month). The defendant was issued a seizure and collection order on November 20, 201 by making D the debtor, the plaintiff as the third debtor, and the plaintiff as the third debtor, and received D's claim to return the lease deposit against D's plaintiff.

After that, based on the above collection order, the defendant filed an application for the payment order of KRW 11,060,656 against the plaintiff, and the plaintiff did not object to the delivery on December 27, 2013 and became final and conclusive on January 11, 2014.

2. According to the provisions of Article 246(1)6 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 246(1)6 of the Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 1183, Jan. 6, 2015) provides that “The amount eligible for preferential repayment pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act (amended by Act No. 1314, Dec. 30, 2015)” shall be prohibited from being prohibited from being seized, and in the case of the Government pursuant to the provisions of Article 8 of the Housing Lease Protection Act and Articles 3 and 4 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 2420, Dec. 30, 2013), a lessee

However, the above prohibition of seizure claim provision is a mandatory provision to protect the lessee of a small amount, and any disposition contrary to the provision is invalid.

Therefore, since D's claim for return of the lease deposit against the plaintiff included within the range of 22 million won constitutes the claim for prohibition of seizure, the above seizure collection order against the plaintiff is invalid, and the payment order based on it is also related to the claim that cannot be seized and collected.

arrow