beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff’s District Court 2014Ra672 against the Defendant is out of the collection amount due to the seizure and collection order.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Based on the executory exemplification of the loan case in Daejeon District Court 2005Gahap4523, the Defendant filed an application for a seizure and collection order with the Daejeon District Court 2014 Ta12393 as to the amount of KRW 1,627,827,94 among D’s wage claim against D, until it reaches the amount of KRW 800,00,000 among D’s wage claim against D’s Plaintiff, such as investment and dividend income, and the amount of money to be returned from D upon termination of the investment contract until it reaches the amount of KRW 827,827,94 out of the investment and settlement amount to be returned from the Plaintiff at the time of termination of the investment contract (hereinafter “claim against the Plaintiff’s claim”).
B. On October 2, 2014, the above court decided to authorize the disposition of the judicial assistant who rejected the above application on the ground that it constitutes an excessive seizure. However, on November 10, 2014, the court revoked the above judgment of the first instance, which was pending before the Defendant’s appeal ( Daejeon District Court 2014Ra672), and issued a decision to seize and collect the claim against the Plaintiff asserted by the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant collection order”).
C. On July 9, 2012, the Plaintiff was incorporated as “B Co., Ltd.” and changed to “A” on October 16, 2014.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 9, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that D does not have any claim against the plaintiff by the defendant since it does not constitute an investor or actual manager against the plaintiff as a person unrelated to the plaintiff, and therefore, D does not have any claim against the plaintiff.
On the other hand, in light of the fact that the defendant used the human and physical facilities of the non-party F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "non-party F Co., Ltd.") which was intentionally defaulted by D as the company operated by D as the plaintiff's factory site, the defendant is deemed to be the actual management owner of D. Thus, the defendant is deemed to be the actual management owner of the plaintiff.