압류금지채권의 범위변경 사건의 쟁점과 입법론 - 예금채권을 중심으로

Under Article 246(1)8 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 7 of the Enforcement Decree thereof, the amount equivalent to KRW 1.85 million of the deposits of a debtor combined across all financial institutions cannot be seized. Additionally, according to various laws for social security, such as the National Basic Livelihood Security Act (hereinafter “social security laws”), accounts into which benefits or pensions are deposited cannot be seized. The purpose of these provisions is to ensure that debtors can maintain a minimum standard of living despite seizure orders. Meanwhile, Article 246(3) of the Civil Execution Act allows the court, upon the request of the creditor or debtor, to cancel all or part of a seizure order or to order the seizure of claims exempt from seizure, in consideration fo the living conditions and other circumstances of a creditor and a debtor. This is referred to the case involving the modified scope of claims exempt from seizure. The purpose thereof is to enable the court to exercise discretion in altering the scope of seizure to ensure fairness in individual cases. However, in practice, the seizure-prohibition system for deposit claims has not been operated properly. Under the current Civil Execution Act, financial institutions as garnishees under a seizure and collection order cannot clearly identify the scope of deposits exempt from seizure. As a result, financial institutions refuse to pay the deposit amounts where the seizure-prohibited status is unclear to either the creditor or the debtor. Furthermore, in practice, accounts for receiving benefits under social security laws are sometimes seized. Consequently, the courts are inundated with cases requesting the cancellation of seizure orders for specific deposit amounts. This legislative inadequacy causes inconvenience to creditors, debtors, and financial institutions. Due to these legislative shortcomings, the system on the modification of seizure orders under Article 246(3) of the Civil Execution Act is being applied in ways that deviate from its original legislative intent. The system was initially designed to grant courts discretion to define seizure boundaries differently from the general rules. However, in practice, it is primarily used to correct seizure orders that conflict with seizure-prohibition regulations. To resolve the issue of unpaid deposits due to financial institutions refusals, both creditors and debtors frequently apply to the court for modifications of seizure orders in accordance with Article 246(3) of the Civil Execution Act. Some common application types observed in practice require an examination of their legality or validity. Ultimately, legislative improvements to the seizure-prohibition system for deposit claims are necessary. By clarifying the scope of seizure-prohibition through legislative measures, the inconvenience faced by creditors and debtors would be reduced, the burden on financial institutions would be alleviated, and the workload of courts would decrease. Furthermore, the system on the modification of seizure orders could then be operated in line with its original legislative intent.