Any action to confirm the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against a person who is not the execution creditor of the claim that is the cause of the mixed deposit or the deposit shall be unlawful.

Defendant Republic of Korea is not designated as a person to whom the deposit of this case was made, and is not in the position of enforcement creditor as to the deposit claim of this case, which is the cause of the deposit of this case. Thus, there is no legal interest in seeking confirmation of the right to claim the deposit of this case against Defendant Republic of Korea. Thus, Plaintiff’s lawsuit against

Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act

Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

Han Bank, Inc.

Republic of Korea 2 others

on 04 October 01, 201

on 15, 2015

1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant is dismissed.

2. On October 24, 2013, the Plaintiff and Defendant AAAA Project Financial Investment Company and the KoreaB Corporation confirm that the claim for payment of deposit amount against the Plaintiff was filed by the CC Bank deposited with the gold No. 21949 of this Court in 2013, KRW 18,155,492,701, and the 8,108,557,130 deposited with the court gold No. 21950 of this Court in 2013.

3. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant AAAA Project Financial Investment Company and KoreaB Corporation are borne by Defendant AAAA Project Financial Investment Company, KoreaB Corporation, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On October 24, 2013, CC Bank confirmed that each of the claims for payment of deposit amount of KRW 18,155,492,701 deposited by this Court No. 21949 in gold 2013 and KRW 8,108,557,130 deposited by this Court No. 21950 in gold 2013 were the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The background leading up to the conclusion of the monetary claim trust contract as of November 27, 2009;

1) On November 23, 2009, Defendant AAA project financial investment company (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant AA”) opened a company MDA deposit account (Account Number 1005-601-*******, deposited amount of KRW 75 billion; hereinafter referred to as “the first account”) in the company MDA bank (hereinafter referred to as “CC bank”) on November 23, 2009. On November 27, 2009, it received a loan of KRW 850 billion from a lender composed of Plaintiff, DD Securities Co., Ltd., EE Investment Securities Co., Ltd, and FF Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant AA”), and the first beneficiary (the first beneficiary) between the above lender and the above lender entered into the trust contract of each of the Defendant AAA and the first beneficiary deposit claim of this case (hereinafter referred to as “the first beneficiary deposit claim of this case”) with each of the Plaintiff.

2) On November 27, 2009, Defendant AA notified the Plaintiff of the instant first account deposit claim against theCC bank. On the same day, Defendant AA notified the Plaintiff that it entrusted the instant first account deposit claim, and obtained the Plaintiff’s consent of the fixed date copy of the said trust from theCC bank.

3) After that, around December 11, 2009, the status of the first-class beneficiary under the instant trust contract was transferred to a limited liability company specializing in the AAB primary securitization. Defendant AA entered into a loan agreement with the KoreaG Bank (hereinafter “SC Bank”), Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd., Ltd., CC-Investment Securities Co., Ltd., CC-Investment Securities Co., Ltd., Ltd., Compensation Securities Co., Ltd., Ulish Investment Securities Co., Ltd, Ulish Investment Securities Co., Ltd., and Korea Commercial Securities Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “first-class loan”), and with the lender comprised of Korea Commercial Securities Co., Ltd., Ltd., the first-class beneficiary interest under the instant trust contract, and at the same time, Defendant AAA terminated the existing first-class beneficiary interest under the instant trust agreement, and concluded an amendment to the terms of granting the first-class beneficiary interest to the new lender.

4) On March 9, 2012, Defendant AA notified the CC Bank of the fact that the new lender, including the SC Bank, acquired a Class 1 beneficial right under the instant amendment agreement. On the same day, Defendant AA obtained the fixed date approval from the CC Bank for the said amendment agreement.

5) Thereafter, the first-class right to benefit under the instant trust contract was transferred to a limited liability company and a limited liability company of the AAAC CP and a limited liability company of the AAAC CP.

(b) The background leading up to the conclusion of the monetary claim trust contract as of November 29, 2010;

1) On November 24, 2010, u300 Defendant AA opened an enterprise MDA bank account (Account Number 1005-801-*****, Deposit Amount of KRW 45.88 billion**, hereinafter referred to as the “Second Account”) with CC on November 24, 2010. On November 29, 2010, 6,55.5 billion loans (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Loan”) were received from the lender composed of the Plaintiff, Korea Investment Securities Co., Ltd., Dongyang Total Securities Co., Ltd., Alternative Securities Co., Ltd, and Korea Commercial Securities Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Second Loan”) from the lender composed of the above lender to secure the above loan obligation, the first beneficiary (priority beneficiary) between the above lender and the second beneficiary (the second beneficiary) concluded the instant Deposit Claim and the instant Deposit Claim Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Secondary Deposit Claim”) with the Plaintiff.

2) On November 29, 2010, Defendant AA notified the Plaintiff that it entrusted the instant deposit claim of the instant Second Account to theCC bank, and on November 30, 2010, Defendant AA received the consent from theCC bank with the fixed date date copy regarding the said trust.

3) The first-class beneficial right under the instant 2 trust contract was transferred to a limited company specialized in the AA third-party securitization.

(c) the provisional seizure by Defendant KoreaB Corporation and the seizure by Defendant Korea;

1) On June 4, 2013, Defendant Korea-B made a provisional attachment on Defendant AA’s deposit claim against Defendant AA bank by taking the claim for refund of the purchase-price amounting to KRW 45 billion against Defendant AA as the preserved claim.

2) On October 14, 2013, the director of the final tax office affiliated with the Defendant Republic of Korea attached the deposit claims against the Defendant AAA bank in order to collect KRW 10,887,983,580 of the comprehensive real estate holding tax in arrears by the Defendant AA in 2012.

(d) Repayment of loans granted by Defendant AA and deposit ofCC Bank;

1) On July 12, 2013, Defendant AA paid the principal and interest of loan due to the instant loan No. 1, and around September 16, 2013, Defendant AA repaid the principal and interest of loan due to the instant loan No. 2, respectively.

2) Meanwhile, on October 24, 2013, on the grounds that it is unclear whether the provisional attachment made by Defendant BB and the seizure made by Defendant Republic of Korea with respect to each of the instant deposit claims (hereinafter “instant deposit claims”) and each of the said deposit claims, theCC bank deposited the Plaintiff and Defendant AAA as the depositee on October 24, 2013 and the court deposited the balance of the instant secondary account at KRW 18,15,492,701, and KRW 21950, respectively (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s main defense

A. Summary of this defense

The Defendant Republic of Korea seized the instant deposit claim in order to collect comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2012 in arrears by Defendant AAA, but the Defendant AAA completely paid the comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2012, thereby releasing the said seizure. Thereafter, the Defendant Republic of Korea only seized the Defendant AA’s right to claim payment of deposit money in order to collect comprehensive real estate holding tax in 2009 and 2013 in arrears, and did not have attached the instant deposit claim itself, and was not designated as the beneficiary of the instant deposit, the Plaintiff did not have any legal interest in seeking confirmation of the Defendant’s right to claim payment of deposit money in Korea.

B. Determination

The depositor of a mixed deposit deposits is deposited not only to the deposited parties but also to the execution creditor, including the creditor of provisional seizure, in order to obtain the recognition of the claim for the withdrawal of the deposited goods, so it is insufficient that the deposited person has a document proving that he/she has the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods only in relation to the other deposited parties in claiming the withdrawal of deposited goods, and in relation to the above execution creditor, the document proving that he/she has the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods should be prepared and submitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012).

In light of the above legal principles, in order for the Plaintiff to have legal interest in seeking confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money against the Defendant Republic of Korea, it should be presumed that the Defendant Republic of Korea was designated as the beneficiary of the deposit of this case or in the position of enforcement creditor against the deposit claim of this case which was the cause of the deposit of this case. In light of the above facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendant AAA was the depositer of this case, as seen earlier, and the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the head of the final district tax office affiliated with the Defendant Republic of Korea did not have any legal interest in collecting the deposit money of 10,87,983,580 won in arrears by the Defendant AAA for the purpose of collecting the deposit claim of this case on October 14, 2013, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of deposit money of this case against the Defendant Republic of Korea as the beneficiary of comprehensive real estate tax of this case on December 6, 2013, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of deposit money of this case was not accepted.

3. Determination as to each claim against Defendant AA and KoreaB Corporation

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff asserts that, inasmuch as there was no separate legal act transferring the instant deposit claim, which is a trust property, to Defendant AA, a truster and a Class 2 beneficiary, by repaying all the principal and interest of the instant deposit claim due to the instant loan Nos. 1 and 2, the instant deposit claim is still deemed to have been reverted to the Plaintiff, the trustee, and thus, Defendant BB Corporation 1 asserts that the instant deposit claim for the amount of the said deposit claim is deemed to have been reverted to the Plaintiff. As the instant trust claim is terminated upon the termination of the first and second trust contract, Defendant BB Corporation 1) claims that the instant deposit claim, a trust property, return to Defendant AA, a truster and a Class 2 beneficiary, without any separate transfer, is naturally returned to the Plaintiff, and thus, the claim for payment of the deposit claim against the said amount of the deposit claim is asserted to Defendant AA.

B. Determination

A trust is to have a trustee manage or dispose of property for the purpose of the trust by transferring or disposing of property rights to a trustee (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da62119, Oct. 14, 1994). Even if the trust is terminated, the trustee is obligated to transfer the trust property to the beneficiary, truster, etc. who is the right holder to whom the trust property belongs, and not to return or succeed the trust property to the beneficiary, truster, etc. naturally. Until transferring the trust property, the trustee is a legal trust trustee for the right holder to whom the trust property belongs for the purpose of termination of the trust affairs and final calculation, and is obligated to continue managing the trust property within the same purpose, and the right holder to whom the trust property reverts acquires the right to acquire the residual property, such as the trust property, in the form of the right to benefit from the trust (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da1272, Jul. 12,

In light of the above legal principles, according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, Article 15 of the Special Agreement on the Trust Contract Nos. 1 and 2 of this case provides that "the period from the date on which the trust takes effect to the date on which the debt to Class 1 beneficiary is fully repaid," and Article 10 (4) of the Special Agreement on the Trust Contract provides that "the payment of trust expenses is completed, and the principal and interest of each of the above loans of this case is paid to Class 1 beneficiary and the principal and interest of this case is repaid as the principal and interest of this case are fully recognized as the principal and interest of this case, since each of the above special agreement on the trust contract is paid to Class 1 beneficiary and the principal and interest of this case is paid to Class 2 beneficiary if the principal and interest of this case are repaid in any way other than the payment of Class 1 beneficiary and the principal and interest of this case are paid to Class 2 beneficiary."

However, even if all of the above trust contracts have been terminated, it is apart from the fact that the Plaintiff, a trustee, is obligated to transfer the instant deposit claim, which is a trust property, to Defendant AAA, which is the truster and the second-class beneficiary, to the truster and the second-class beneficiary, and the above deposit claim cannot be deemed as having been naturally returned to or succeeded to Defendant AA. Thus, unless the Plaintiff, a trustee, did not perform a separate legal act to transfer the instant deposit claim to Defendant AAA, which is the truster and the second-class beneficiary, after the termination of each of the above trust contracts,

Therefore, in relation to the above deposit claim, the claimant's claim for withdrawal against the deposit claim amount deposited in this court is the plaintiff, and as long as the defendant B Corporation 2) contests this claim, the plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant's Republic of Korea is dismissed, and each claim against defendant AAA and KoreaB Corporation is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.