Busan Trainingdong Association

ABBS Co., Ltd. and one other

December 20, 2018

Busan District Court Decision 2018Gadan8561 Decided January 31, 2019

1. On June 19, 2015, based on the executory exemplification of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da5489782 Decided June 19, 2015 with respect to the non-party 1, the compulsory execution against the deposit claim of Busan △△△△ Credit Union (Account Number 1 omitted), the account number (Account Number 2 omitted) and the account number (Account Number 2 omitted) shall be denied, based on the authentic deed of No. 2918 △△ Credit Union Account Number (Account Number 1 omitted) against the non-party 1 on the basis of the Busan District Court's Busan District Court's Dong Branch 2018 No. 10250 and No. 103498 and the compulsory execution against the non-party 2 on the basis of the authentic deed of No. 2018 △△△ Credit Union Account Number (Account Number 1 omitted) with respect to the non-party 1.

2. This Court approves the ruling of the suspension of compulsory execution on August 29, 2018 with respect to the case of applying for the suspension of compulsory execution 2018 Chicago66.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

4. Paragraph 2 can be provisionally executed.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Nonparty 1 is the representative of the Plaintiff elected on January 1, 2018.

B. Defendant BBB loan (hereinafter “Defendant BB”) has the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da5489782 Decided June 19, 2015 (hereinafter “instant judgment”) against Nonparty 1, and the content of the said judgment claim is as follows.

“15,706,219 won and 3,970,000 won among them at the rate of 20% per annum from May 14, 2015 to the date of full payment”

C. The judgment of this case against the non-party 1 as the executive title of the third debtor △△ Credit Union (hereinafter “△△ Credit Union”) was executed by receiving the Busan District Court’s order of seizure and collection of the claim amounting to KRW 4,50,000 from the non-party 1, the third debtor △△△ Credit Union (hereinafter “△△ Credit Union”). The Busan District Court also attached KRW 12,312,180 to the non-party 1 with the Busan District Court’s order of seizure and collection of the claim amounting to KRW 2018,00,000.

D. Defendant 2: (a) executed the No. 20,115,060 of the deposit debt of Nonparty 1 to Nonparty 1 of the △△ New Consultation, with the title of execution of the No. 2018 No. 115,060 No. 20,00 for Nonparty 1’s No. 2010,00 for Nonparty 1, the Busan District Court’s Dong Branch Branch of the District

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, Gap 3-1, 2, Gap 4, Eul 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

Of the opening accounts opened by Nonparty 1 in the △ New Cooperative, the regular deposit account (number 1 omitted) and the self-reliance deposit account (number 2 omitted) (hereinafter “instant deposit account”) (hereinafter “instant deposit account”) are deposited in the name of a new president by opening the Plaintiff in the name of Nonparty 1 and finding the Plaintiff’s membership fees that the former president opened in the name of Nonparty 1 and entrusted to the △△ New Cooperative. In concluding a deposit contract with the △△ New Cooperative, stating that the funds are the Plaintiff’s membership fees and are to be used as the Plaintiff’s passbook. The deposit account opened by Nonparty 1 using the Plaintiff’s personal seal impression, the parties to the deposit contract for the said account are the Plaintiff who is not Nonparty 1, and therefore, the execution of the said claim by the Defendants based on a judgment or notarial deed against Nonparty 1 is unjust.

B. Defendant Pose's assertion

The Plaintiff did not have any identification number or tax number, and entered into a contract for a deposit without submitting evidentiary data, such as the Plaintiff’s identification number, in the name of Nonparty 1, the representative of the Plaintiff at the time of the deposit contract in the instant deposit account. Nonparty 1 is an individual who is not the Plaintiff. Nonparty 1 also applied for a change in the scope of claims prohibited from seizure, recognizing that he is the deposit owner.

3. Determination

(a) Facts of recognition;

1) The Plaintiff is an organization whose members are, or will be, persons who complete or equivalent to the Plaintiff’s training center, or persons who reside in Busan and Gyeongnam as its members, with the aim of training for visually impaired persons and promoting friendship as a result of a short run, the Plaintiff is an organization organized on December 2, 1987, and the president, as its representative, is elected by the vote of its members, and the term of office is two years.

2) On September 13, 2018, the Plaintiff received an identification number from the head of the Shipping Department Tax Office on September 13, 2018 while filing the instant lawsuit, and registered its business on the same day.

3) On January 1, 2018, Nonparty 1 was elected as the Plaintiff’s president, and Nonparty 2, the former president, took over the Plaintiff’s bylaws, the Plaintiff’s list of members, and the passbook of △△ △△ 20 million deposited with the Plaintiff’s membership fees, and the Plaintiff’s seal impression, etc. on January 3, 2018, Nonparty 2, the former president, and Nonparty 2 transferred the Plaintiff’s membership fees of KRW 22,645,349, including regular deposits deposited in the name of Nonparty 2 in the Dong-dong, Busan, Dong-gu, and filed an application for a partnership transaction with △△△ Group.

4) Upon Nonparty 1’s application for the cooperative transaction, △△ New Cooperatives opened a regular deposit account (number 1 omitted) and a self-reliance deposit account (number 20 million won) with the regular deposit account and 2,645,349 won in the self-reliance deposit account.

5) As above, Nonparty 1 filed an application for a partnership transaction, and Nonparty 1 entered the purpose of the financial transaction into the “Dongmun-gu passbook,” and △△ New Credit Union entered the detailed information on the account newly opened as mentioned above in the name of the head of the Tong and additionally stated the Plaintiff’s name in the deposit account column in the deposit account book as follows.

【Reforests below】

(Afforestation omitted)

6) Meanwhile, on October 26, 2011, Nonparty 1 possessed a non-taxable deposit account (number 3 omitted) opened in the △△ Cooperatives. On the other hand, Nonparty 1 applied for a change in the scope of prohibition of seizure of claims seizure against the deposit claims of the said account at the Busan District Court’s Dong branch branch, Busan District Court 2018tagi270, 2018tagi294.

[Ground of recognition] The non-contentious facts, Gap 1, 2, 5 through 11, Eul 4, the fact inquiry results about the head of Busan △△ Credit Union and the purport of the whole pleadings

B. Determination

Although the real name verification in the deposit contract for the deposit account in this case was made on the basis of the individual non-party 1, as seen in the facts of recognition, it appears that the plaintiff deposited membership fees in the name of the president, who is the representative of the △ Group from before the non-party 1 before the non-party 1, and the △△ Credit Union appears to have received data on the plaintiff's organization. The plaintiff's former president and the new president, and the non-party 2 and the non-party 1 also cancelled the plaintiff's membership fees deposited in the name of the △ Group, and deposited the deposit account in this case at the same time, the non-party 1 had an account (Account No. 3 omitted) in the △ Group, but the non-party 1 had already had an account (Account No. 3 omitted). However, the non-party 1 had a new application for the transaction in the association and used the plaintiff's seal, the purpose of opening the passbook was stated as the "Dong passbook passbook", and the non-party 1 did not have an individual status as the plaintiff's representative.

Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the creditor of the deposit account of this case is not the non-party 1 but the non-party 1's creditor's non-party 1's execution is justified.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is accepted on the ground of the reasons.

Judges Lee Jin-hee