Plaintiff (Law Firm current, Attorneys Kim Gi-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Young New Technology Co., Ltd. (Attorney Dong-chul, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

August 27, 2015

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 3,589,205 won with 20% interest per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment.

1. Basic facts

The following facts can be acknowledged in light of the purport of the whole pleadings in each statement of evidence Nos. 1, 2, 3, 10, 11, 15, 17, and 18.

A. On April 22, 2013, the Plaintiff filed an application for a payment order (Seoul Northern District Court 2013 tea2160 Check money case; hereinafter “instant payment order”) with Nonparty 1 as the debtor, seeking payment of KRW 674 million in the current number of shares issued by the members system of the company (hereinafter “GG system”). On May 2, 2013, the Plaintiff submitted a corporate register on the membership system to the effect that the debtor is Nonparty 1, the said court ordered to specify whether he/she is Nonparty 1, and specified the membership system as the debtor when submitting the corporate register on the membership system.

B. However, on August 31, 2012, the member system received a decision on commencing the rehabilitation procedure on August 31, 2012 (the Daejeon District Court 2012 Gohap21 Debtor Rehabilitation), and Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2 were appointed as joint managers, and such details were entered in the corporate register. Thus, the instant payment order was served on May 10, 201 by the debtor, rather than the member system, by stating “ Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the joint management of the members of the rehabilitation corporation system,” and was finalized on May 25, 2013.

C. After that, on July 18, 2013, the Plaintiff applied for the attachment and assignment order with the entry of the debtor's crew system and the seizure bond members system into the purchase price bonds held by the Defendant. On the part of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, the debtor's joint management system, Nonparty 1 and Nonparty 2, the third debtor, the Defendant, and the claim amounting to KRW 33,589,205 (hereinafter "the assignment order of this case"). The attachment and assignment order of this case was issued with the claim amounting to KRW 33,589,205, and the assignment order of this case was delivered to the Defendant on July 22, 2013, and the assignment order of this case became final and conclusive on November 26, 2013.

D. Meanwhile, the member system was decided to discontinue the rehabilitation procedures on April 25, 2013, and the decision was finalized on May 9, 2013, and entered in the corporate register on May 13, 2013.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff received the entire order of this case based on the payment order of this case. Since the above assignment order was served on the defendant, the defendant is obligated to pay the whole amount to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

Only the finalized payment order becomes an executive title, and the requirements of seizure and assignment order are the requirements, and the administrator, not the representative director of a corporation in a lawsuit against a stock company under rehabilitation proceedings, is a party to the lawsuit, but when the rehabilitation is decided to be abolished, the trustee's authority

According to the above facts, on May 9, 2013, prior to the delivery of the instant payment order, the rehabilitation procedure for the crew system was already abolished, but it can be known that the instant payment order was delivered to the administrator rather than the representative director of the crew system. According to these facts, the instant payment order was not delivered to the legitimate party or the representative, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion premised on the confirmation of the instant payment order is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim J-jin