Whether the rights of the members of the Construction Financial Cooperative are qualified for full claims;

The investment of the members of the Construction Mutual Aid Association established under the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act is the shares of the members listed on the investment certificates, and the shares of the said members in the shares of the said members are not monetary claims under Article 563(1) of the Civil Procedure Act. Therefore, the entire bonds are not qualified.

Article 5 of the Construction Financial Cooperative Act, Article 2 of the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Financial Cooperative Act

Chuncheon

Construction Financial Cooperative

Gwangju District Court of the first instance (77Gahap770)

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff in the first and second instances.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 5,00,000 won with an interest of 5% per annum from January 26, 1976 to the date of full payment.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the defendant.

The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

According to the contents of Gap evidence No. 1 (claim Attachment and Assignment Order), which does not conflict with the establishment, it can be recognized that a notary public of the non-party 5,00,000 won for the non-party 5,00 won for the mutual-aid investment 5,00,000 won for the defendant association held by the new Jinjin Construction Co., Ltd. on January 19, 1976 in order to receive the amount of 5,00,000 won for the non-party 1's claim attachment and Assignment Order from the non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1's non-party 1

However, since the defendant's attorney issued investment certificates to the investors of the defendant's association and issued investment certificates are securities, compulsory execution is subject to the method under Article 566 of the Civil Procedure Act. Thus, the seizure of claims against the above investment shares under Article 561 of the Civil Procedure Act is legitimate because it is argued that the seizure of claims under Article 561 of the same Act and the order accordingly is void as a matter of course. The defendant's attorney's right to share is merely a certificate indicating the amount of shares invested as a member of the plaintiff's association. In order to transfer the right to share, the defendant's attorney must obtain approval from the management committee of the defendant's association. The transferee can not transfer the securities only by endorsement because there is any restriction that is not a member or a constructor, and it cannot be easily realized like government bonds or bonds (see Supreme Court Order 76Ma497, Feb. 8, 1977).

However, in the event that an assignment order is lawfully implemented, the eligibility of the entire amount should be determined. However, according to the articles of incorporation of the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act, the Construction Mutual Aid Association Act, the Enforcement Decree of the Construction Mutual Aid Association, and the Defendant Mutual Aid Association, the non-party New Construction Co., Ltd., the entire amount of claims of the Defendant Mutual Aid Association against the Defendant Mutual Aid Association should be determined. First, the amount invested by the non-party New Construction Co., Ltd. in the Defendant Mutual Aid Association is not in the nature of the deposit that can be claimed at any time, but in the inherent property of the Defendant Mutual Aid Association. The members of the Defendant Mutual Aid Association have the rights and duties of the members such as the right to receive necessary deposit and funds from the Defendant Mutual Aid Association and the right to receive dividends of profits. Second, the members of the Defendant Mutual Aid Association cannot claim the return of the entire amount of their contributions by voluntarily withdrawing from the Defendant Mutual Aid Association, and the members of the Defendant Mutual Aid Association can distribute their rights to the Defendant Mutual Aid Association with the resolution of the Steering Committee. Third, the 16.

Thus, the assignment order is null and void because the non-party Newjin Construction Co., Ltd.'s right to share against the defendant's association has no eligibility for the entire part of the claim. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for this case based on the premise that the above assignment order is valid should be dismissed on the ground that it is no longer necessary to determine it. Thus, the judgment of the court of first instance, which has different conclusions, is unfair, and the plaintiff's claim for this case is dismissed, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party and it

Judge Lee Lee-tae (Presiding Judge)