NEWSLETTER-2017

400 NEWSLETTER 2017 ment offices shall be occupied with reimbursement of monies from the creditor whose claims are found to be unjustified. A sense of injustice is created when the debtor, who is willing to protect himself from the pressure of attachment during the finalization process of the verdict and prevent the difficulty of reimbursement of the possible payment, is held liable with compensation for enforce- ment denial in the amount of 20%, as a result of his/her objection to enforcement without a verdict, at the end of the trial of annulment or removal of objection. Therefore, a creditor’s pursuit of enforcement proceedings without a verdict while holding a verdict is against the principle of good faith, and falls under the scope of abuse of right. Dissenting Opinions Two dissenting opinions are present in the Decision. In summary, these opinions defend that the law of enforcement is a procedural branch of law. There is no provision in the Law that explicitly forbids one to pursue enforcement proceedings without a verdict while hold- ing a verdict. While Article 32 of the Law regulates that the enforce- ment agent shall issue an enforcement order in the event the creditor submits a verdict is not mandatory, it is possible to halt the enforce- ment proceedings by way of objection, and the debtor that can request suspension of enforcement may also make a payment under reserve to the file of enforcement without a verdict. The debtor who wrong- fully objects despite the presence of a finalized verdict regarding the presence of the debt must bear the consequences, and the balance of interest is established in favor of the creditor under the Law. Conclusion The General Assembly has decided to unify decisions as “the re- ceivable based on a verdict may not be put into enforcement proceed- ings without a verdict,” because pursuing enforcement proceedings without a verdict while holding a verdict is not in conformity with the enforcement law. Further, in this way, the creditor has no legal interest, the condition of the debtor is aggravated, and the balance of interest between the parties is disrupted.