2017Gaz. 51405 Collection Funds

A

Asian Trust Corporation

November 29, 2017

December 15, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 811,091,582 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case until the day of full payment.

1. Basic facts

Around November 26, 2015, the Regional Housing Association Promotion Committee (hereinafter referred to as the "Promotion Committee of this case") and BabC Co., Ltd., the agency company of the Promotion Committee of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "the agency company of this case") entered into a contract with the defendant for a fund management on behalf of the defendant with regard to the new construction project of B regional housing association apartment (hereinafter referred to as the "project of this case") implemented within 30,842 square meters in Yeonsu-gu Incheon Metropolitan City, Yeonsu-gu, and the main contents thereof are as follows:

제3조[용어의 정의]3. '신청자'라 함은 지역주택조합에 조합원으로 가입하고자 하는 의사를 표현한 자를 말한다.4. '신청금'이라 함은 신청자가 이 사건 사업에 조합원으로 가입을 신청하기 위하여 납입한조합가입 신청금을 말한다.5. '업무대행료'라 함은 이 사건 사업의 제반 조합업무 수행을 위하여 조합원이 조합원 부담금과 별도로 이 사건 업무대행사의 업무대행 보수금으로 납부하는 금액을 말한다.6. '조합원 부담금'이라 함은 조합원이 지역주택조합의 내부규정에 따라 이 사건 사업의 준공 후에 지역주택조합으로부터 목적건축물(조합원에게 배정된 공동주택)의 소유권을 이전받기 위하여 지역주택조합에 납부하여야 하는 조합운영비, 사업부지 매입비. 건축비 등 일체의 금액을 말한다.제4조[계약당사자 역할]1. 이 사건 추진위원회의 역할 및 업무가. 이 사건 사업을 위한 각종 인•허가 업무, 인•허가 조건의 이행나. 사업계획승인 신청시까지 사업부지에 대한 소유권확보 등다. 홍보관(모델하우스)의 건립•운영(이하 생략)2. 피고의 역할 및 업무가. 이 사건 사업의 자금관리나. 자금관리자로서 이 사건 추진위원회와 이 사건 업무대행사가 합리적으로 요청하는 업 무에 대한 지원3. 이 사건 업무대행사의 역할 및 업무가. 사업부지 매입계약, 인•허가 업무, 홍보관(모델하우스)의 건립•운영, 조합원 모집•관리 등 이 사건 사업 시행을 위한 이 사건 추진위원회의 업무지원(이하 생략)제11조[신청금의 입 출금 관리]③ 신청금 계좌에 입금된 신청금은 다음 각 호 이외에는 어떠한 경우라도 지출할 수 없다.1. 신청자가 이 사건 추진위원회의 서면동의를 득한 신청해지요청서를 첨부하여 요청한경우의 신청금 환불2. 이 사건 계약이 해지된 경우의 신청금 환불3. 본조 제6항에 의한 조합원 부담금 계좌로의 이체⑥ 이 사건 추진위원회가 조합설립인가 신청 등과 관련하여 조합원가입계약서 등의 서류를 피고에게 제출하는 경우, 피고는 단독으로 조합원가입계약을 체결한 신청자의 신청금에 한하여 신청금 계좌의 자금을 조합원 부담금 계좌로 이체하기로 한다. 이 경우에 신청금은 조합원 부담금으로 자동 전환된다.제12조[업무대행료의 입•출금 관리]④ 업무대행료의 입출금은 이 사건 추진위원회와 이 사건 업무대행사가 체결한 용역계약에의거하여 이 사건 업무대행사의 동의와 이 사건 추진위원회의 요청에 의해 피고가 집행을하되, 필수사업비에 대해서는 이 사건 업무대행사의 단독 요청으로 피고가 집행할 수 있다.다만, 그 집행시기는 본조 제5항에 의한다.⑤ 업무대행료는 조합설립인가를 득한 후에 이 사건 추진위원회와 이 사건 업무대행사의요청에 따라 이 사건 업무대행사에게 집행할 수 있고, 조합설립인가 이전에는 확인서가 징구된 조합원의 업무대행료에 한하여 전체 예정세대수 중 20% 이상 조합원 모집시 자금집행할 수 있다.제13조[조합원 부담금의 입•출금 관리 ]④ 조합원 부담금 계좌에 입금된 조합원 부담금은 다음 각 호의 항목으로만 사용되어야 한 다.1. 이 사건 사업의 사업부지 매입비, 사업관련 분•부담금, 제세공과금, 조합원 부담금 반환금, 이 사건 사업의 민원비용, 피고에게 발생하는 사무처리비용2. 대리사무보수(신탁보수 포함)3. 이 사건 사업 대출원리금(토지매입을 위한 대출금)4. 공사비5. 설계, 감리비 등 각종 용역비, 광고 홍보비, 조합원 모집대행수수료 등 필수 사업비6. 조합의 차입금 상환7. 조합운영비 등 일반관리비, 기타 사업비8. 관련법령을 위배하지 않는 한도 내에서 지역주택조합의 내부규정에 따라 지급할 수 있는 비용9. 정산금10. 이 사건 업무대행사가 이 사건 사업 필수 사업비로 기 집행한 고유자금(대여금 포함)의 상환 및 업무대행료로 대납한 사업비에 대한 상환(단, 조합설립인가 신청 접수 이후 집행가능)⑥ 조합원 부담금 계좌에 입금된 금원의 인출은 이 사건 추진위원회가 지출금액에 대한 요청근거(계약서, 세금계산서, 계약업체의 청구서 등)를 첨부하여 피고에게 서면으로 지급요청하기로 한다.⑦ 본조 제4항에 따른 조합원의 부담금의 자금 집행은 조합설립인가가 완료된 이후에 집행하는 것으로 한다. 다만, 이 사건 사업의 전체 예정 세대수의 50% 이상의 조합원이 모집된경우는 조합설립인가 이전이라도 조합원 부담금을 집행하기로 하고, 이 경우에 집행 가능항목은 토지비, 설계비, 대리사무보수 등 필수사업비에 한하며, 이 사건 추진위원회는 조합원으로부터 별도의 자금집행 동의서(모집 조합원 80% 이상 동의서 징구를 요함)를 징구하여 피고에게 제출해야 한다.⑧ 이 사건 사업의 원활한 진행을 위하여 본조 제6항에도 불구하고 피고는 다음 각 호의 1에 해당하는 자금을 단독으로 집행할 수 있으며, 이에 대하여 이 사건 추진위원회 또는 이사건 업무대행사는 피고에게 일체 이의를 제기하지 아니한다.1. 이 사건 추진위원회의 채권자 등이 피고를 상대로 소송을 제기하거나 보전처분, 강제집행 등을 함으로써 이를 해결하기 위하여 필요한 소송비용(판결원리금, 소송대리인 선임비등 포함), 공탁금 등2. 대리사무 보수3. 조합원 부담금 환불금4. 피고 명의로 부과되는 제세공과금 등5. 피고가 징수의무를 부담하는 신탁계좌 이자소득 원천징수액

O) The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Promotion Committee of this case seeking to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 75,071,720, including the lease deposit, charge for compelling the performance, removal expenses, etc., and delay damages therefor, which the Promotion Committee of this case agreed to pay to the Plaintiff in relation to the Housing Promotion Center for the purpose of promoting the instant project, with the Incheon District Court 2016Ga60309. On March 24, 2017, the said Court rendered a judgment that “The Promotion Committee of this case shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 75,071,720 as well as the amount calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from December 1, 2016 to March 24, 2017, and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.” The said judgment became final and conclusive on April 13, 2017.

Pursuant to the above judgment, the Plaintiff received the collection order of 12,094,86 won annually from March 25, 2017 to June 7, 2017, under the contract of this case by the Incheon District Court 2017TTTTT 508742 (i.e., the principal amount of the judgment 775,071,720 won + the legal interest of 5% per annum from December 1, 2016 to March 24, 2017 + 12,094,886 won + from March 25, 2017 to June 7, 2017, the date of receipt of the application for the seizure and collection order, 23,89,196 won + execution cost 25,280 won, and 280 won (hereinafter referred to as the “debtor”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, significant facts in this court, Gap 1, 2 evidence (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

According to the instant contract, the instant promotion committee has a claim for the application fee, agency fee, and association member's charge against the Defendant, and the Plaintiff seizes and seizes each of the above claims.

Inasmuch as the Defendant received a collection order, as the garnishee of the collection order of this case, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 81,091,582, which is the attached amount based on the collection order of this case, to the Plaintiff who is the collection authority, as the garnishee of the collection order of this case.

3. Determination

(a) Claims for the amount claimed;

We examine whether the claim, which is the claim subject to the seizure order of this case, has occurred.

According to Article 3 subparagraphs 3 and 4 of the contract of this case, "applicant" means a person who expresses his intention to join a regional housing association as a member, and "application amount" means a person who makes an application to join the project of this case as a member of the project of this case. Article 11 (3) and (6) of the contract of this case provides that "the applicant is requested to the defendant or the contract of this case must be terminated by attaching a written request to terminate the application with the written consent of the Promotion Committee of this case." Thus, it is recognized in the above facts. Thus, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the applicant who expressed his intention to join the regional housing association as a member of the B, requested the termination of the application to the defendant or the termination of the contract of this case, even if the applicant satisfies the above requirements, it is interpreted that the applicant is not the promotion committee of this case, but the subject to the allocation of the claim of this case arising therefrom, and thus, the defendant is not obligated to refund the application amount to the Promotion Committee of this case.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(b) A claim on agency fees;

As to whether the agency fee claim, which is the bond subject to the collection order of this case, has occurred

(c)

According to Article 3 (5) of the contract of this case, "agency fee" and "the agent fee of this case means the money paid by the agent of this case as the agent fee in addition to the cooperative member's charges." Article 12 (4) and (5) of the contract of this case provides that "the defendant executes the agent of this case upon the consent of the agent of this case and the request of the promotion committee of this case." Thus, there is no evidence to prove that there was the consent of the agent of this case and the request of the promotion committee of this case concerning the agency fee of this case. Even if the agency fee of this case satisfies the above requirements, the agent fee of this case is interpreted as the agent of this case, not the promotion committee of this case. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the defendant is liable to pay the agent fee of this case.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(c) Claims on members' contributions;

We examine whether the claim of the partner, which is the claim attached to the collection order of this case, has occurred.

According to Article 3 subparagraph 6 of the contract of this case, the "members' charges" refer to all the amount of construction expenses to be paid by the members to the local housing association in order to transfer the ownership of the apartment house allocated to the members after the completion of the project of this case. In order to withdraw the amount deposited in the account for the members' charges, Article 13 (6) of the contract of this case provides that the promotion committee of this case shall request the defendant to pay in writing, along with the supporting documents attached to the request for the amount spent by the members. Thus, the statement of Gap evidence No. 4 alone

It is insufficient to recognize that the promotion committee of this case requested payment in writing to the defendant, along with the documents supporting the request for the amount of expenditure, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, so it cannot be deemed that the defendant is liable to pay cooperative members' contributions under Article 13(6) of the Agreement.

In addition, Article 13 (8) 1 of the contract of this case provides that "in order for the smooth progress of the project of this case, the defendant may independently execute the funds equivalent to the litigation costs (including the principal and interest of judgment, etc.) necessary to resolve the litigation by filing a lawsuit against the defendant by the creditor, etc. of the promotion committee of this case." However, as acknowledged earlier, Article 13 (7) of the contract of this case is executed after the completion of authorization for establishment of the association, but the execution of the fund for the association members under Article 13 (4) of the contract of this case shall be executed after the completion of authorization for establishment of the association, but if the number of association members exceeds 50% of the total scheduled number of households of the project of this case is recruited, the promotion committee of this case shall obtain a written consent for fund execution from at least 80% of the recruitment association members and submit it to the defendant. Therefore, even if the promotion committee of this case did not request the defendant to pay the expenses of association under Article 13 (6) of the contract of this case, the contract of this case, the defendant shall not be 7.

Unless there is any assertion or evidence that the Defendant submitted a written consent for the execution of funds to the Defendant, it cannot be deemed that the Defendant had an obligation to pay the members’ contributions pursuant to Article 13(8) of the instant contract.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

D. Sub-committee

As seen above, the claim of this case was not created, which is the claim subject to the seizure of the collection order of this case, the claim of this case, the agency fee claim, and the association member's charge claim. On a different premise, the claim of this case by the prior owner is without merit without examining any further.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

Judges higher than the presiding judge

Judges Ham Jae-hwan

Judges Park Sang-ok