beta
Text
1. The Defendants’ payment order against the Plaintiff was based on the order of payment in the case No. 2015j2736, Namyang-si District Court, Namyang-si.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. A. A company established on December 11, 2012, for the management and asset circulation business of the bond purchase and the assets purchased, and the Plaintiff is a special purpose company established on May 19, 2014 under the Asset-Backed Securitization Act (hereinafter “Asset Securitization Act”) for the purpose of managing, operating, and disposing of securitization assets.
B. On November 2, 2015, the Defendants filed an application with the Plaintiff for a payment order claiming the return of the said investment amount (i.e., KRW 576,80,000, KRW 528,500,000, Defendant B, Defendant B,300,000, which is to be paid from the management of the trust assets (i.e., Defendant A528,50,000) on the ground that the Plaintiff is a juristic person identical with the management of the trust assets, and thus, the Plaintiff is liable to return the said investment amount.).
On November 6, 2015, the above court paid to Defendant A KRW 528,50,000, KRW 48,300,000 to Defendant B, and damages for delay thereof. The above order for payment was finalized on November 26, 2015.
C. Based on the original copy of the instant payment order, the Defendants received a claim attachment and collection order (Seoul Central District Court 2015TTT 26743, Seoul Central District Court 2015TT 26743, and 2015T 2674444) regarding the dividend to be distributed to the Plaintiff in the auction of real estate Seosan Branch C.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including each number in the case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is a company with a completely separate legal personality from the management of the beneficiary’s assets, and it is not possible to bear obligations pursuant to the asset-backed securitization plan pursuant to the Asset-backed Securitization Act. Therefore, the Defendants do not bear joint and several obligations for the repayment of investment funds in the management of the beneficiary’s assets.