1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) is a company established on December 11, 2012 for the purpose of purchasing bonds, managing purchased assets, distributing assets, etc., and the Plaintiff is a special purpose company established on May 19, 2014 for the purpose of managing, operating, and disposing of asset-backed securitization through an asset management company pursuant to the Asset-Backed Securitization Act (hereinafter “Asset-Backed Securitization Act”).

B. On October 27, 2015, the Defendant filed an application against the Plaintiff for a payment order with the Busan District Court Decision 2015 tea1592, stating that “The Defendant has a claim for the return of investment amount of KRW 351,80,000 against C, and the Plaintiff and C are similar to each other, and as the type of business and the head office are identical to each other, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 351,80,000 to the Defendant.”

C. On November 5, 2015, the above court issued a payment order stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount calculated by the ratio of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment (hereinafter “instant payment order”).” The above payment order was finalized on November 26, 2015.

From November 30, 2015 to December 21, 2015, based on the original copy of the instant payment order, the Defendant received three claims attachment and collection orders as to the dividend claims that the Plaintiff would receive from the Republic of Korea in the Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court and the Chuncheon District Court’s real estate auction case.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 5 evidence, Eul 4 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the defense prior to the merits

A. The gist of the defendant's assertion 1) Since D, which is the representative director of the plaintiff, is not the representative director legally appointed, the lawsuit of this case filed by D is unlawful. 2) The plaintiff's priority second creditor of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case is below the OSB Savings Bank.