메뉴 건너뛰기
.. 내서재 .. 알림
소속 기관/학교 인증
인증하면 논문, 학술자료 등을  무료로 열람할 수 있어요.
한국대학교, 누리자동차, 시립도서관 등 나의 기관을 확인해보세요
(국내 대학 90% 이상 구독 중)
로그인 회원가입 고객센터 ENG
주제분류

추천
검색

논문 기본 정보

자료유형
학술저널
저자정보
저널정보
한국재산법학회 재산법연구 재산법연구 제27권 제1호
발행연도
2010.1
수록면
357 - 387 (31page)

이용수

표지
📌
연구주제
📖
연구배경
🔬
연구방법
🏆
연구결과
AI에게 요청하기
추천
검색

초록· 키워드

오류제보하기
The Judgment Creditor(hereinafter, ‘Creditor’) may force any property belonged to the Judgment Debtor(hereinafter, ‘Debtor’) to be sold upon public auction on his or her own choice. Hence Creditor also may as garnish any right to Debtor's wage or bank deposit as he or she can attach Debtor's tangible assets. However, certain personal property or right to credit(right to ask payment) are exempt from garnishment to protect disadvantaged people who scraped a living with these assets. The problem arises when Creditor tries to seize account where fulfillment of nongarnishable obligation, namely non-seizable money, is deposited. In Korea, The Court consistently held that Creditor can seize or levy bank account where nongarnishable amount of money is deposit. The Court reasons that the nongarnishable nature will be cease to exist where nongarnishable right is merged into garnishable right by making a deposit into account. because it is practically impossible to differentiate nongarnishable from garnishable. The Court suggest that the Debtor may apply for revocation of seizure or change of seized amount, then it will protect the Debtor upon considering the legislative purpose of listing nongarnishable rights. The reasoning of the Court may be logically right but not practically. It is too conceptual to achieve the public purpose of protecting the socially-disadvantaged. Most of them have never been legally educated enough to know that they should apply for revocation to the Court. Furthermore, it is practically impossible for them to be relieved under current Korean scheme in some cases, because the Debtor cannot apply for revocation after the balance is turned over to the Creditor through Bank Levy. Namely, the Court would issue seizure of bank account and bank levy at the same time in practice, and the Debtor may be in lack of time for application. Another problems arises where the Bank is both a Creditor and a Debtor. The Korean Commentators have not shown an interest on this problem, however, the situation goes serious where the Creditor Bank set-offs its Credit with Debt. Unlike execution of court judgment, the exercise of the right of set-off is very easy thanks to its informality; The bank would just say set-off, ant that is it. Hence, the purpose of protecting the poor can more easily be detoured under this circumstances. So, I hereby suggest the protection though amendments of applied Acts will be best resolution. If it takes time, the Court should apply its interpretation more leniently. Hence, it will be better off, if the court may interpret nongarnishable nature is maintained where it is not practically impossible to differentiate nongarnishable from garnishable.

목차

등록된 정보가 없습니다.

참고문헌 (29)

참고문헌 신청

함께 읽어보면 좋을 논문

논문 유사도에 따라 DBpia 가 추천하는 논문입니다. 함께 보면 좋을 연관 논문을 확인해보세요!

이 논문의 저자 정보

최근 본 자료

전체보기

댓글(0)

0