Since admission ticket payment claims are the property of the association, it is illegal to attach a third party's property.

Even if a person entered into a direct sales contract under his/her own name, so long as the contract is clear that it is a commercial activity, the validity of the sales agency contract for admission tickets is naturally excessive to the union, and the claim under the sales agency contract for admission tickets is the property of the association acquired by the manager's act of acting for the manager

1. The attachment disposition taken by the Defendant on September 1, 2009 against the claims listed in the separate sheet shall be revoked based on the disposition on default against △D Co., Ltd.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Details of the disposition;

A. The △△D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△D”) entered into an agreement on sales of admission tickets with △△D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△D”) under the condition that △D sells an admission ticket to the old Lone Star Cream, offered by △D, and △D will pay the sales agency fee to △△D.

B. The Defendant seized the claim amount of KRW 176,814,50 on September 1, 2009 and Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the National Tax Collection Act on the claim amounting to KRW 176,814,50 on the claims indicated in the separate sheet held by △△△△ pursuant to Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 44 of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act on the ground that △△△ was in arrears (hereinafter “instant disposition”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 7 (including virtual numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the disposition is lawful;

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The claim stated in the attached list, which is the subject of the instant disposition, is a claim for the payment of the admission ticket sales price held by the association established under the business partnership agreement between the Plaintiff and △△ branch, and the instant disposition is a claim for the payment of the admission ticket sales price held by a third party who is not a taxpayer, and thus is legally null

B. Relevant statutes

The entries in the attached Table-related statutes are as follows.

(c) Fact of recognition;

1) On March 17, 2008 and January 1, 2009, the Plaintiff entered into a business agreement (hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) with △di to jointly hold the instant exhibition as follows.

2) Pursuant to the instant contract, △△D entered into a contract on the sales of the instant exhibitions provided by △△D on December 31, 2008, and △△D entered into an agreement on the sales of the instant diskettes with △D to pay the sales agency fees to △D.

3) The Plaintiff and Masan opened a joint account in the name of one bank, and Masan performed all the duties related to attracting exhibitions, and the Plaintiff performed public relations activities by inserting advertisements or articles related to the instant exhibition in the East Asia Island. The Plaintiff was indicated as the organizer and Masan in the materials such as advertisements and articles.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap's statements in Gap's evidence 1 through 6, 8 through 12, and the purport of whole pleadings

D. Determination

1) With respect to whether the Plaintiff and Matridi are in a relationship with a cooperative under the Civil Act, the Plaintiff and Matridi agree to invest each prescribed amount and receive a certain ratio of earnings. The Plaintiff, as joint organizer, agreed to share the business affairs of the Plaintiff and Matridi, to carry out public relations activities as well as the actual business affairs of the instant exhibition. The Plaintiff and Matridi jointly carried out revenue and expenses under the mutual name agreement, creating a joint passbook and jointly carried out revenue and expenses pursuant to the said agreement, and the Plaintiff may recognize the facts indicated as the principal supervisor and Matridi in the materials such as advertising and articles of the instant exhibition.

In addition to the above facts, considering the following circumstances, the Plaintiff’s public relations business accounts for a significant part of the business of the exhibition of works, and the Plaintiff’s joint organizer and the external joint business relationship with the Plaintiff was revealed externally, it is reasonable to deem the Plaintiff and Masan as a partnership relationship under the Civil Act.

2) Furthermore, we examine the validity of the admission ticket sales agency contract concluded with △△○○.

A partner who executes the business affairs of a cooperative is presumed to have the power of representation in performing his/her business (see Article 709 of the Civil Act). Article 48 of the Commercial Act provides that an act is effective against himself/herself even if the juristic act is not indicated to be for himself/herself, even if it does not indicate to the effect that it is for the business affairs of the cooperative, the juristic act is effective against all the partners who are the principal (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da79340, Jan. 30, 2009).

Even if the Health Team returned to the instant case and the △D entered into a direct sales agency contract under its own name, as long as the said contract is clear that it is a commercial activity in relation to △D, the validity of the sales agency contract for admission tickets concluded by △D with the said association as an executive partner of the said association shall naturally be the same as the said association whose members are the Plaintiff and △D, and the instant claim under the sales agency contract for admission tickets shall be the property of the

3) Ultimately, a claim for payment of admission tickets is a property of the association to which the Plaintiff belongs, which is not an insurance company, and the disposition of this case is unlawful since it is a seizure for a third party’s property, not a taxpayer.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the ground of the reasons.