The opener of a bank account opened to secure preferential payment has the right to receive the deposit prior to other seizure holders.

If a joint account holder deposits money contributed by each joint account holder for a specific purpose other than a partnership business, he/she may not independently withdraw the money until the purpose thereof is achieved, and he/she has the right to receive the deposit money by means of other seizure and provisional seizure, such as national tax bonds, etc.

Article 247 of the Civil Execution Act: Demand for Distribution

2014 Ghana 140364 Deposit Payment Claim

1. AA;

1. BB2.CC 3. D4. Korea5. EE6. FF.7. National Health Insurance Corporation;

June 30, 2015

October 13, 2015

1. On April 23, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court confirmed that the claim for withdrawal against KRW 50,380,883 deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2014No. 8707 was against the Plaintiff.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant BB (hereinafter in this case, Defendant BB),CC (hereinafter in this case, DefendantCC), and ED

(a) Description of the claim;

The reasons for the attached Form shall be as shown in the attached Form.

(b) Applicable provisions;

1) Defendant BB: Judgment by public notice (Article 208(3)3 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2) DefendantCC and ED: Confession judgment (Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Republic of Korea, EE (hereinafter, Defendant EE), FF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter, Defendant FF in case of the Plaintiff), and the National Health Insurance Corporation

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff jointly conducted the online advertising business with Defendant BB, and Defendant BB decided to act as an advertising agent (AD Agent), and the Plaintiff decided to act as an media agent (Media Agent).

2) In order to guarantee the preferential payment of the Plaintiff’s advertising fees as indicated in the application for the publication on November 1, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant BB agreed to preferentially cover the amount of the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff after the execution of the advertisement with respect to the advertising fees deposited in the said joint account at our bank. Defendant BB agreed to cooperate in all procedures necessary for the withdrawal at any time.

3) Although the Plaintiff continued online advertisements of advertiser GG from December 9, 2012 to May 5, 2013, the Plaintiff was not paid advertising expenses of KRW 50,634,000.

4) DefendantCC, ED, Korea, EE, F, and the National Health Insurance Corporation, the creditors of Defendant BB, was ordered to seize or provisionally seize the claims of the debtor corporation BB and the third debtor H Bank as indicated below.

5) On April 23, 2014, Hbank deposited creditors’ seizure, as seen above, and on the grounds that the real creditor of the joint name deposit could not be known as the Plaintiff or Defendant BB, Hbank deposited in combination with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014No. 8707, No. 50,380,883.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

1) In the event a joint account holder opened a joint account for the purpose of preventing and supervising the savings account holder from withdrawing his/her own account before the purpose of the joint account holder's deposit is achieved by having his/her own share of funds deposited by each joint account holder for a specific purpose other than a partnership business, the deposit account holder shall be divided in quantity to each joint account holder, and each joint account holder shall jointly belong to each joint account holder, and the right to manage and dispose of his/her share of each joint account holder shall belong to each person (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da7319, Sept. 9, 2005).

2) According to the foregoing recognition, the Plaintiff’s health team and the above recognition, from Defendant BB.

The Plaintiff and Defendant BB’s H bank account under the joint name of the Plaintiff are not paid advertising expenses of KRW 50,634,00, and the Plaintiff and Defendant BB are established to secure the preferential payment of advertising expenses to be paid to the Plaintiff, and Defendant BB is obligated to cooperate at any time when the Plaintiff demands withdrawal of an amount equivalent to the tax invoice issued by the Plaintiff in order to receive advertising expenses. As such, Defendant BB is obligated to verify the Plaintiff’s claim for withdrawal of KRW 50,380,883 of the joint name deposit account deposited by HH bank. Defendant BB is obligated to verify that the Plaintiff has the right to claim payment of KRW 50,380,883 of the joint name deposit account deposited by the HH bank. The remaining Defendants, only the person who seized or provisionally seized Defendant B’s claim for payment of the deposit against the H bank

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is with merit, and it is decided as per the disposition.