beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s payment order for the Plaintiff was based on the Busan District Court’s 2015 tea 11592.
Reasons
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 securitization assets under 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 claiming the return of the investment amount under Busan District Court Decision 2015 tea1592, stating that “the Defendant has a claim for the return of the investment amount against C. The Plaintiff is a special purpose corporation of C as a special purpose company. Therefore, the Plaintiff is jointly and severally liable for the return of the investment amount.”
C. On November 5, 2015, the above court ordered the Defendant to pay the amount of KRW 315,800,000, and the amount calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from the day after the original copy of the payment order was served to the day of complete payment. The above payment order was finalized on November 26, 2015.
(hereinafter “instant payment order”). D.
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 District Court and the Chuncheon District Court’s real estate auction case.
【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul No. 4 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. The summary of the Defendant’s assertion 1) is not the Plaintiff’s legitimate representative director, and the instant lawsuit is unlawful as it is filed by a person without the authority of representation. 2) The instant lawsuit is substantially filed by OSB Savings Bank (hereinafter “ESB Savings Bank”).