Between the creditor, who took the set-off actions, and another creditor, who has same debtor, Prioritizing the range of legal status or how they decide the content of those range is problem; especially, When there is another creditor who seizes the obligation of the original creditor (passive obligation). Setting the regulations on the legal action between execution creditor and the creditor, who took the set-off actions, is when the problem concretes the shape of the set-off and seizure. These are the main problems of "The range of obligations that resist to an execution creditor as the set-off." If there is a 3rd person with opposite obligation on the debtor, before the seizure takes actions, that person expect to settle the obligation as the set-off, and those expectation should be protected by under range of due process law. Even though it is time of seizure, the 3rd debtor also expect to take the set-off actions, when the set-off period comes. In conclusion, the court takes appropriate measures.
Ⅰ. 서설
Ⅱ. 상계로써 압류채권자에게 대항할 수 있는 채권의 범위에 관한 판례와 학설
Ⅲ. 상계로써 압류채권자에게 대항할 수 있는 채권의 범위에 관한 일본에서의 학설과 판례 상황
Ⅳ. 검토
Ⅴ. 결론에 갈음하여
<참고문헌>
(0)
(0)