Only because the company has disbursed the deposit, rent and management expenses and used the leased object as the location of the principal office of the company, it is difficult to see that the lessee is the company.

It is difficult to readily conclude that the representative director of the company, who is the nominal owner of the contract, is the lessee merely because the company has spent the deposit, rent, and management expenses and used the leased object as the location of the principal office of the company.

Article 487 of the Civil Act

2016 Confirmation of a person entitled to deposit money payments

MaO

Republic of Korea and 2

August 22, 2017

September 19, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On March 10, 2014, RedO deposited with the District Court No. 57,600,000,000 won 57,278,840 won, which was deposited by the RedO on March 10, 2014, confirmed that the Plaintiff has the right to claim payment of deposit money.

1. Basic facts

A. Based on the claim claim amounting to KRW 44,804,790 based on the executory payment order in the case of return of investment deposits against Defendant △△△ corporation, the Plaintiff received a collection order for the seizure and collection of the claim amounting to KRW 2013,00,000 from the Seoul OO-dong No. 000 O-O00 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”) held by the Defendant Company against RedO on May 28, 2013, with respect to the claim for the refund of the deposit, etc. of part of the O-dong No. 0000 (hereinafter referred to as the “instant building”).

B. The RedO deposited KRW 57,600,000 with the deposited person as the Defendant SongO or the Defendant on March 10, 2014, upon receipt of the above order of seizure and collection, on March 10, 2014. The reason for deposit is that the lessee of the instant building cannot be identified as the Defendant, and thus, the deposit should be made to anyone pursuant to the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

C. Accordingly, on the basis of the claim claim amounting to KRW 77,110,358 based on the payment order stated in Paragraph (a) against the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order on November 11, 2016 with the O District Court 2016TT00, and the order was served on the Republic of Korea as the garnishee on November 16, 2016.

D. Meanwhile, on August 25, 2014, Defendant Korea seized the right to claim payment of the above deposit money of Defendant SongO based on the tax claim of KRW 351,402,310 against Defendant SongO.

[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap 2-7 evidence, Eul 1 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Considering the fact that the lease contract of the building in this case includes a lessee, but the Defendant Company spent the deposit money, rent, management expenses, etc., and that the building was located at the location of the principal office of the Defendant Company and was not used as the residence of the Defendant Company, the lessor RedO and the Defendant Company agreed to or impliedly agreed to change the lessee to the Defendant Company. Therefore, even though the Defendant Company had the right to claim deposit payment as the lessee of the building in this case, it was subject to the attachment and collection order issued by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff claim confirmation that the right to claim deposit payment is the Plaintiff. The amount is KRW 57,278,840, which was incurred before March 10, 2014, which was due to the occurrence of the Plaintiff Company’s default in the Republic of Korea before the date of deposit.

3. Determination

It is difficult to recognize that the lessee of the instant building is the Defendant Company.

According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 8, the defendant company was issued a tax invoice of January 2012 and July 2013 by the lessor HongO. However, as asserted by the plaintiff, it is difficult to view the tenant as the defendant company merely because the defendant company spent deposit, rent, management expenses and the leased object was used as the location of the principal office of the defendant company. The reason is that it is sufficiently possible for the defendant company to use the leased object as the representative of the defendant company in the name of an individual to use it as the location of the principal office of the defendant company. If the lessee entered in the lease contract actually changes, it is reasonable to view that the parties to the contract newly prepared the modified lease contract with such content. The lessor HongO was not known who is the lessee, but rather the defendant company used the leased object as the principal office of the defendant company.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the fact that the lessee has changed from defendant SongO to the defendant company is not acceptable.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.