부집행합의에 관한 연구 ─채무자가 부집행합의를 주장하는 방법을 중심으로─ = Study on non enforcement agreement ─How to argue non enforcement agreement by the debtor─

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

If the parties enter into a non enforcement agreement stating that they will not carry out compulsory execution of a certain claim or limit the method or scope of compulsory execution, such agreement shall be a valid restrictive execution contract. However, its legal nature will be considered as a private dept contract. Accordingly, creditors bear a substantive obligation not to apply for compulsory execution contrary to the non enforcement agreement, while the execution agency is not bound by the non enforcement agreement.
Therefore, even if the creditor applies for compulsory execution contrary to the non enforcement agreement, this is not illegal compulsory execution under the execution act, so the debtor cannot file an immediate appeal or an objection of enforcement, but can be disputed as an action for objection to execution, which is a remedy for unfair execution that is illegal under substantive law. Furthermore, the interpretation of the existence and content of the non enforcement agreement needs to be carefully reviewed in the ruling process of the court of a lawsuit. A careful considering is also required in that if a non enforcement agreement is recognized, the creditor will suffer a disadvantage equivalent to losing in a lawsuit for payment.
There may be cases where the debtor claims the existence of the non enforcement agreement in the payment lawsuit because the non enforcement agreement has already been established before the conclusion of the pleadings in the lawsuit for payment. In this case, in principle, the existence and scope of the liability will not be considered as the subject of judgment. However, in light of the nature of the lawsuit for payment in which the judgment citing the claim becomes the execution title, if a non enforcement agreement is claimed, the grant or rejection of compulsory execution should be viewed as being subject matter to judgment. If the court consider the non enforcement agreement and acknowledge that compulsory execution cannot be carried out, it must be stated in the text of the decision.
In addition, since the grant or rejection of compulsory execution is not a lawsuit in the payment lawsuit, it will not be blocked due to res judicata even if a non enforcement agreement is later claimed in an action for objection to execution. Not only from the perspective of subject matter and res judicata, but also from the fact that the non enforcement agreement becomes an issue mainly at the execution stage, it should be seen that claims of non enforcement agreements that were not raised in the lawsuit for payment can be argued in the action for objection to execution.

참고문헌 (Reference)

1 조대현, "한정승인의 항변" 한국민사소송법학회 1 : 1998

2 송인권, "한정승인의 요건 및 효과에 관한 실무상 문제" 법원도서관 55 : 2012

3 김연, "한정승인을 한 상속인의 절차법적 지위" 경북대학교 법학연구원 60 : 2017

4 오창수, "한정승인과 소송절차" 국민대학교 법학연구소 29 (29): 2017

5 양지정, "한정승인 및 상속포기와 기판력에 의한 실권효" 대구판례연구회 20 : 2011

6 심우용, "청구이의 사유로서의 한정승인" 법원도서관 (63) : 2007

7 김동현, "집행계약에 관한 연구" 한국외국어대학교 법학연구소 43 (43): 2019

8 강대성, "신민사집행법" 탑북스 2014

9 이시윤, "신민사집행법" 박영사 2020

10 김경욱, "소송계약에 관한 일반적 고찰" 안암법학회 29 : 2009

11 김홍엽, "민사집행법" 박영사 2024

12 전병서, "민사집행법" 박영사 2024

13 김홍엽, "민사소송법" 박영사 2024

14 김홍규, "민사소송법" 삼영사 2020

15 현낙희, "면책 주장과 기판력 및 청구이의의 소" 한국민사소송법학회 26 (26): 2022

16 황경남, "강제집행・임의경매에 관한 제문제(상)(재판자료 제35집)" 법원행정처 1987

17 민일영, "강제집행・임의경매에 관한 제문제(상)(재판자료 제35집)" 법원행정처 1987

18 上原敏夫, "給付訴訟において不執行の合意が認められた場合の判決注文" (565) : 1995

19 兼子一, "民事法研究Ⅰ" 酒井書店 1968

20 三ケ月章, "民事執行法" 弘文堂 1981

21 中野貞一郎, "民事執行法" 青林書院 2006

22 八木良一, "最高裁判所判例解説民事篇(平成5年度下)" 1996

23 高橋譲, "最高裁判所判例解説民事篇(平成18年度)(下)" 2009

24 石川明, "強制執行法研究" 酒井書店 1977

25 内山衛次, "強制執行を行なう権利の放棄又は不執行の合意の存在を主張して強制執行の排除を求める方法" (1332) : 2007

26 西川佳代, "強制執行を受けた債務者がその請求債権につき強制執行を行なう権利の放棄または不執行の合意があったことを主張して裁判所に強制執行の排除を求める場合に執るべき手続き" (36) : 2008

27 坂口裕英, "不執行の合意がある場合と給付判決の注文" (13) : 1996

28 上原敏夫, "不執行の合意" (337) : 2008

29 上田竹志, "不執行の合意" 2020