민사집행절차상 특별법에 의한 압류금지의 범위와 조정 가능성

Abstract

The number of laws stipulating a prohibition of seizure in the civil enforcement system in Korea, exceeds 70. It is inevitable that legislation prohibits the seizure of certain assets of debtors in order to protect them, as recognized by almost countries in the world. However, too many anti-seizure legislation infringe the rights of creditors in civil enforcement procedures and hinders the smooth progress of procedures. Moreover, most of these laws lack uniform consideration under regulations, and do not even consider the relationship with the Civil Execution Act. In this regard, it is often questionable to what extent the actual property is prohibited from being seized. Discussions on this point are still quite insufficient and there are only a few precedents, but some say that seizure is unconditionally prohibited as all of the claims prescribed by the law. However, this attitude only means blind protection of debtors and is not desirable for fair enforcement procedures. Therefore, if the individual law clearly stipulates or sets the scope of the seizure, it is inevitable to comply, but if there is no clear provision, the scope and whether the seizure prohibition should be determined according to the provisions of the Civil Execution Act.