1. Revocation of the first instance judgment against the defendant.

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant is dismissed.

3. Action.

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows.

(main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. Determination on the claim

A. The gist of the claim (1) The plaintiff is the association agreement with the plaintiff and D to jointly hold the exhibition of this case. The contract of this case is the property of the association whose members are the plaintiff and D.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is merely a creditor of D, not a partnership, and the defendant's execution of provisional seizure on the claim of this case, which is a partnership property, is not allowed to preserve advisory fee claims against Ateex. Thus, the plaintiff is not allowed to seek non-permission of execution of provisional seizure as a partner.

(2) The Defendant: The instant contract is an association agreement with the Plaintiff and D to jointly hold the instant exhibition. D entered into a contract for the loan of works with Ateex as a manager of the partnership.

Since D delays the payment of 4,35,000 Won under the above contract, D shall reduce the amount to be paid by D between D and D on April 15, 2009 to 2,35,000, but it entered into an agreement on April 15, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "agreement on April 15, 2009") with the content of transferring D's claim against D's human rights to tex to tex. Although D did not clearly indicate that it is an act of association, the validity of the agreement on April 15, 2009, which is a commercial activity, under Article 709 of the Civil Act and Article 48 of the Commercial Act, extends to the Plaintiff, a principal association or a member.

Therefore, since D’s debt obligations against D’s Ateex pursuant to the Nteex agreement on April 15, 2009 are partnership debts, the execution of provisional seizure against D’s debt is lawful in order to preserve the advisory fee claims against Dteex, in which the Defendant was insolvent, on behalf of the company, in order to preserve the advisory fee claims against Dteex.

B. Whether the Plaintiff and D are in a partnership relationship under the Civil Act, and the claim against the twitk.