2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

A. (tentative name) In order to implement the project of constructing a new apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project,”), the committee of promotion of the regional housing association in the Seocho-dong area (hereinafter referred to as the “committee of promotion”) delegated the project site purchase contract, the recruitment and management of union members, etc. to the SPC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “SPC”) in order to implement the project of constructing a new apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant project”).

B. On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff entered into a service contract on behalf of a preliminary partner recruitment service with the details that the Plaintiff would invite preliminary members of the association to be established for the instant project and receive fees from the SPC.

C. On February 17, 2017, the Plaintiff conducted the recruitment of prospective partners by not later than February 17, 2017. On February 20, 2017, the Plaintiff agreed to terminate the said service agreement with the M&C and determined the total amount of the service cost to be paid to the Plaintiff by M&C as KRW 627,00,000. On the other hand, the Plaintiff was issued a notarial deed of each promissory note issued by M&C from M&C as of July 230, 2017, at a face value of KRW 37,00,000,000 for A’s A’s certificate, on July 31, 2017, and at a face value of KRW 231,50,000,000 for the date of payment, and on April 15, 2017.

D. On January 11, 2017, the instant housing association promotion committee, the U.S. C&C, and the Defendant concluded a contract on behalf of the Defendant for a fund management to delegate all of the fund management duties related to the instant project (hereinafter “instant agency contract”), and the main contents are as follows.

위임자 이 사건 주택조합 추진위원회(이하 '갑'이라 한다), 위임자로부터 업무를 수임받은 조합 업무대행자 미르씨앤씨(이하 '을'이라 한다) 및 자금관리 대리사무 수임자 피고(이하'병'이라 한다)는 속초시 교동 774번지 일원 (가칭) 교동지역주택조합 공동주택 신축사업(이하 '본 사업'이라 한다)을 추진함에 있어 다음과 같이 자금관리 대리사무계약(이하 '본 계약'이라 한다)을 아래와 같이 체결한다.제1조 (목적)본 계약은 갑이 본 사업의 안정적인 진행과 투명하고, 효율적인 자금관리를 위하여 본 사 업과 관련한 일체의 자금관리 업무를 병에게 위임하고, 사업관계자의 협조하에 그에 필요한 사무처리 방법과 절차를 규정하고, 갑, 을, 병 간의 역할분담 등을 정하여 본 사업을 원활히 추진하는데 그 목적이 있다.제2조 (용어의 정의)본 계약에서 사용하는 용어의 정의는 다음 각 항과 같다.⑤ "업무대행비"라 함은 본 사업 관련 조합원 분담금과 별도로 업무대행에 필요한 비용으로써 조합설립 등 사업초기에 소요되는 각종 용역비용과 업무대행사의 용역수수료를포함한 것을 의미한다. 단, 업무대행사에 귀속되는 용역수수료는 조합설립인가 이후에업무대행계약서 범위 내에서 조합 총회의 승인을 받아 정산(지급)하기로 하며, 정산(지급) 이전의 업무대행비는 해당 금원을 납부한 조합 또는 조합원의 금원으로 본다.⑥ "조합원 분담금"이라 함은 조합원이 지역주택조합의 내부규정에 따라 본 사업의 준공후에 지역주택조합으로부터 목적 건축물(조합원에게 배정된 공동주택)의 소유권을 이전받기 위하여 지역주택조합에 납부하여야 하는 조합운영비, 사업부지(토지) 매입비, 건축비 등 일체의 금액을 말한다.제7조 (자금관리 대리사무계약기간)병의 자금관리 대리사무계약기간은 본 계약 체결일로부터 본 사업의 준공 후 3개월까지로 하며, 조합설립인가 후, 시공예정사와 공사도급계약을 별도로 체결하는 경우 시공예정사를계약당사자로 추가하여 본 계약을 갱신 또는 별도의 사업약정을 체결할 수 있으며, 이때계약기간에 대해서는 별도로 정할 수 있다. 단, 사업진척도 등을 고려하여 기간 변경이 필요하다고 판단되는 경우에는 갑, 병이 합의하여 업무수행기간을 연장할 수 있다.제13조 (조합원분담금계좌 및 업무대행비의 집행기준 및 지급방법)① 병 명의의 조합원분담금계좌에 입금된 자금은 다음 제1호 및 제2호의 조건이 충족됨을전제로 본조 제4항에 따라 운영계좌에서 집행하기로 한다. 다음 제1호 및 본조 제2항의 "건설예정 세대수"란 본 계약 제3조에서 정한 총 건설예정 세대수를 말하며 인허가과정, 사업계획 변경 등으로 건설예정 세대수가 변경되는 경우 갑 또는 을은 변경 즉시병에게 통지하여야 한다. 건설예정 세대수가 변경되는 경우 변경된 건설예정 세대수를 기준으로 다음 제1호 및 본조 제2항의 조합원 모집비율을 산정하여야 한다. 단, 조합설립인가 후 총회의 의결을 거치는 경우에는 총회의결에 따라 집행할 수 있다.1. 건설예정 세대수의 50% 이상의 조합원을 모집하고 모집된 조합원 전원의 [첨부 1] 자금집행동의서를 징구받아 제출한 경우 자금집행에 동의한 조합원의 분담금에 한하여 본조 제4항에 따라 자금을 집행할 수 있다.2. 모집된 조합원 전원의 자금집행동의서를 징구받고 전체사업부지의 80% 이상 토지 권원확보(국.공유지 포함)④ 자금관리계좌의 경우 자금집행순서는 다음과 같으며, 갑, 을 및 병 전원 합의하여 요청하는 경우는 변경할 수 있다. 단, 아래의 순위는 자금이 부족할 경우 선순위 해당자금을 전부 충당한 경우 차순위에 지급하고, 각 순위별 필요 자금의 회차별지급기일이 도래한 비용에 대한 집행순서만을 의미한다.1. 사업과 관련한 제세공과금 및 각종 분.부담금, 신탁 및 대리 사무보수, 조합원 또는 수분양자의 환불금2. 사무처리비용 및 소송비용, 법률자문료, 공탁비용, 민원처리비용, 조합원총회 시 소요비용, 본 사업 진행에 제한을 가하는 권리 말소 비용3. 본 사업 (권리제한사항 없는) 토지비 및 (권리제한사항 없는) 토지 매입과 관련된 비용4. 본 사업 토지관련 대출원리금5. 지구단위계획, 건축설계, 감리비 등 각종 외주용역비, 인허가 및 준공관련 제비용, 분양관련 경비 (분양대행수수료, M/H경비, 설치공사, 임차료, 광고홍보비, 조합원모집수수료등) 일체 및 필수사업비* 조합원 모집수수료는 세대당 금 ____을 한도로 집행할 수 있다. 단, 주택법상 적법요건을 갖춘 용역업체로 인정되고 조합정관 또는 조합계약서 등에 의거 해당용역 을 수행할 수 있는 권한을 위임받은 경우에 한하여 집행이 가능하다.6. 조합(추진위원회)운영비(금 _____ 원/월) 및 조합 업무대행자 업무대행료(조합설립인가 이후 집행 가능)7. 위 항목 외의 관련법령을 위배하지 않는 한도 내에서 조합규약 등 내부규정에 따라 지급할 수 있는 비용⑤ 조합원모집수수료는 업무대행사나 추진위가 지급처에 직접 지급하는 것을 원칙으로 하며, 다음의 조건이 충족하는 경우 병이 집행할 수 있다.1. 조합가입계약서 등 조합원 모집 증빙 확인 후 조합에 직접 집행하는 경우2. 조합과 업무대행사간 체결한 업무대행계약 내용에 따라 업무대행사에 '업무대행비' 항목으로 집행하는 경우제17조 (대리사무의 종료) 본 계약은 다음의 경우 종료한다.① 제7조에서 정한 대리사무 기간이 만료된 경우② 제18조에 의하여 대리사무 계약이 해지된 경우③ 천재지변 및 이에 준하는 사정의 발생으로 인하여 대리사무의 목적을 달성할 수 없는 경우제20조 (사업의 정산)① 병의 업무수행기간이 종료되거나, 본 계약 제17조로 대리사무가 종료되면 본 사업에 대한 정산을 실시한다. 정산시 자금집행은 제13조를 준용한다.② 갑은 정산시 발생한 일체의 사업 손익에 대하여 권리와 의무를 부담한다.③ 본 사업과 관련하여 부족금액 발생으로 미지급금 등이 발생할 경우 갑이 책임지고 지급하기로 하며, 병은 면책된다.

E. On the other hand, on August 8, 2017, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “instant seizure collection order”) as to the amount until it reaches KRW 407,00,000 among the following claims that the Plaintiff, the debtor, and the third debtor, as the Plaintiff, the Defendant, as the Defendant, and the Defendant, issued a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the instant seizure collection order”) on the basis of a promissory note with the executory force on August 1, 2017. The instant seizure collection order was served on the Defendant on August 10, 2017.

The claims for the settlement of accounts for multi-family housing projects to be collected by the debtor from the third debtor, among the settlement money remaining after the third debtor executes the cooperative contributions, agency expenses, etc., and the remaining execution money, for which the debtor is to receive settlement from the third debtor.

【Fact-finding without dispute over the ground for recognition, Gap evidence 1 through 8, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

1) The Plaintiff asserts that SPC has a claim against the Defendant for the amount of settlement, such as commission for membership recruitment, and that the Plaintiff’s order was served on the Defendant upon the issuance of the instant seizure collection order regarding the above amount of settlement deposit, and that the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 407,00,000 and delay damages.

2) As to this, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant did not bear the obligation to pay the amount of money to the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant agency contract was not yet terminated, and thus, the Defendant did not bear the obligation to pay the amount of money to the Plaintiff, since the instant agency contract was not yet terminated.

B. Determination

1) Acknowledgement of claims to be seized and of claims to be collected

A) A creditor who requests an order of seizure on a claim must clarify the type and amount of the claim to be attached (Article 225 of the Civil Execution Act), and an order of seizure on a claim takes effect within the scope of the claim to be attached. Furthermore, it is determined by the interpretation of the text and text stated in the order of seizure, such as “the detailed scope of the claim to be attached” and “the indication of the claim to be attached.” However, a third debtor is assigned to legal disputes between others by others and pressure.

Inasmuch as a third-party obligor bears the duty stipulated in a seizure order, it is necessary to protect such third-party obligor from incurring an excessive burden in determining the type or scope of the claim that is seized. Therefore, the language and text indicated in the seizure order should be objectively strictly interpreted in accordance with the content itself, and if the meaning of the language and text is unclear, any disadvantage arising therefrom would be reasonable to impose on the obligee who requested the seizure order. As such, a claim that the third-party obligor may have an doubt as to whether to include the text in understanding the language and text on the basis of the average person with ordinary caution cannot be deemed included in the subject of the seizure order, barring special circumstances (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da216273, Sept. 10, 205). In a lawsuit for collection, the existence of the claim subject to collection is a requirement for the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da47175, Jan. 11

B) In light of the above legal principles, "the claim for the settlement money for the apartment house business for which the defendant should be settled from the defendant among the remaining settlement money after the defendant executed the cooperative members' contributions and agency expenses, etc.," is stated in the "the indication of the claim to be seized" of the seizure collection order of this case. It is reasonable to view the scope of the seizure collection order of this case as the settlement money stipulated in Article 20 of the agency contract of this case, that is, the settlement money remaining after the defendant executed the cooperative members' contributions and agency expenses, etc., and it is not interpreted as including the "the agency expenses to be paid by the defendant to M&C" in violation of the above provision.

C) Furthermore, as to whether there was a settlement amount to be paid by the Defendant to P&C after the execution of cooperative contributions and agency expenses, etc., as long as the settlement amount claims have not been finalized since the project of this case has not yet been completed, it is insufficient to recognize the existence of a claim for collection under subparagraphs 1 through 9 submitted by the Plaintiff alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

2) Determination as to other allegations by the Plaintiff

A) The Plaintiff asserts that the scope of claims subject to seizure should be wide interpreted considering the content of the instant project and agency contract, the intent of the Plaintiff’s application for the order to collect the seizure of this case, etc. Therefore, the scope of claims subject to seizure according to the instant order to collect the seizure of this case is not limited to the aforementioned settlement amount, but all the money that the Defendant shall settle or pay to SPC, regardless of whether the instant order has been completed or not.

However, as seen earlier, Article 225 of the Civil Execution Act provides that "the creditor shall clarify the type and amount of the claim to be attached to an application for a seizure order." In addition, if the claim is confirmed in the seizure and collection order, it shall not be deemed as a matter of principle to consider the intent of a deliberation without indicating the creditor. In addition, it is impossible to determine whether the amount of the money that the defendant is able to pay to M&C until settlement is completed or not, and if there are money, it shall not be determined whether the amount is ice or not, the defendant is not the subject of the profit or loss belonging to the project in this case, and the agency contract of this case provides that the defendant shall be one order of the execution of the funds for the management of the funds by proxy, regardless of whether the scope of the claims subject to seizure is completed or not. The plaintiff's assertion in this part is without merit.

B) The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant may seek direct membership recruitment fees pursuant to Article 13(5) of the Fund Management Agency Agreement.

However, the purport that the defendant can execute the membership recruitment fee without going through the agency agent or promotion team only if the above provision cited by the plaintiff satisfies certain requirements.

The provision is only limited, but does not provide that the Plaintiff, not a party to the instant agency contract, directly claims against the Defendant. On a different premise, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

judges are judges:

Judges Kim Sung-sung