Creditors

The debtor

Third Obligor;

Daejeon District Court Order 2013Tari 2901 dated September 24, 2013

The appeal is dismissed.

1. Facts of recognition;

According to the records, the following facts are recognized:

A. The creditor filed a counterclaim against the debtor for damages for the purpose of the Seocho Sea Development on the ground that the debtor lost the right of retention for the Seocho Sea Development as the representative director of the Seowest Sea Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Swest Sea Development”), and the debtor filed a counterclaim for the interim confirmation seeking confirmation of non-existence of the obligation for construction payment arising out of the contract agreement as Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court No. 2009Gahap1022. On November 18, 2010, the above court dismissed the creditor's claim and accepted the counterclaim for the said interim confirmation. The creditor appealed to the Daejeon High Court No. 2010Na8417 (Compensation for Damages), 2010Na8424 (Interim Claim for Confirmation), and the debtor appealed to the Daejeon High Court No. 179,00 and 200 won (Intermediate Claim for Damages) and the debtor appealed to the creditor, but the judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the creditor 2019Da471797 (Intermediate Claim for damages).

B. On August 21, 2013, based on the executory exemplification of the Daejeon High Court Decision 2010Na8417, 8424 against the debtor, the creditor filed an application for the attachment and assignment of the instant claim against the debtor’s third party debtor with the Daejeon District Court Seosan Branch 2013TTT2901, and the above court assistant officer decided to accept the above application on August 22, 2013.

C. Although the debtor filed an immediate appeal to the effect that he/she files an objection, the court of first instance decided to authorize the above disposition of the judicial assistant on September 24, 2013.

2. Grounds of appeal and determination

The debtor asserts that since the execution clause of this case is not a party to the Daejeon High Court Decision 2010Na8417, 8424 decided, the execution clause of this case is granted to a creditor who is not a party to execution and the granting of the execution clause is illegal, so the seizure and assignment order of this case should be revoked.

In principle, compulsory execution shall be executed on behalf of the party indicated in the executive title. Accordingly, the shareholder indicated in the judgment as the plaintiff in a shareholder representative lawsuit shall be entitled to receive the execution clause and become an execution creditor for himself/herself. Thus, the creditor shall be a party to the Daejeon High Court Decision 2010Na8417, 8424, which is a final and conclusive party, and shall be eligible as an execution creditor who can file the instant application as part of compulsory execution procedure according to the above judgment. Thus, the above argument by the debtor is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the decision of the first instance court is legitimate, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Judge Supplementary U.S. (Presiding Judge) Kim Jong-S.