Dongil Co., Ltd. (Attorney Lee Yong-sik, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Han Technology Finance Co., Ltd. and 3 others (Law Firm Ppex et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

January 12, 2011

1. Defendant (Appointed Technology Finance Co., Ltd.), Appointer Holdings Co., Ltd., Ltd., Appointer Holdings Inc., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Appointer Sweck Entertainment Co., Ltd., Life Insurance Co., Ltd., Appointer Sweckman Co., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., Ltd., and Appointer Sweckman Inc., Ltd., Inc., Ltd., pursuant to the order of provisional seizure of claims against Appointerkkman6927, Seoul Central District Court 2009Kadan6927, Inc., Ltd., the provisional seizure execution against the claims listed in the Attachment No. 1 as stated in the Attachment No. 209Kadan73108, Dec. 1, 2009; Defendant Law Co., Ltd., Ltd., based on the original copy of the provisional seizure order of claims against the Cultural Transfer Co., Ltd., Ltd., the provisional seizure execution order against Defendant 3 is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. A. Around March 17, 2008 and January 2009, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement (hereinafter “instant agreement”) under which the Plaintiff would jointly hold an old Lone Star Art Exhibitions (hereinafter “instant exhibition”) with the Culture Epid (hereinafter “culture Epid”) (hereinafter “instant agreement”) as follows (around January 2009, a part of the terms of the agreement entered into as of March 17, 2008, entered into as of March 17, 2008, which was revised as of March 2008, and the following introduced contents.

(1) The purpose of this Agreement is to ensure the successful holding of the exhibition of the Plaintiff and culture “GUTAV 209”. ① The title of the exhibition is to promote the sale of the Plaintiff’s books at the time of the conclusion of the agreement with the KUTAV 209: GUVI 2009: the owner shall be entitled to transfer to the Plaintiff and culture. ④ The duration of the exhibition. ④ The place shall be from February 2, 2009 to May 15, 200. 16: EM 16,00,00,000, 8,000, children, 5,000, and 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00,00.

B. Having entered into a contract for the lending of works with Ateex, and leased the subject work from art galleries or personal collectors to the Embrypt to the Embrypt for the purpose of the instant exhibition.

C. On December 31, 2008, human twitk entered into a contract on the sales of the instant exhibitions provided by human twitk as well as the sales agency agreement with Switky Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “human twitk”) to sell and pay sales agency fees to human twitk.

D. Meanwhile, in order to preserve advisory fee claims against Ateex on June 8, 2009, Defendant Law Firm (hereinafter “Defendant Law Firm”), on behalf of Ateex on behalf of the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Kadan73108, Defendant 3 received a decision on July 10, 2009 as to the claim stated in the separate sheet No. 3 in the separate sheet No. 2009Kadan73418, the same court on September 9, 2009, Defendant 4 as to the claim listed in the separate sheet No. 2009Kadan56477, the same court on the 10th of the same month, and Defendant Han-Tech Technology Finance Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han-Tech”) on behalf of the designated parties listed in the separate sheet No. 2009Kadan6927, Jul. 10, 2009.

[Reasons for Recognition]

Defendant Han-Tech Technology Finance and the Pacific: Unstrifed fact, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2, 7-1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

Defendant 3, Defendant 4: Confession

2. Chief;

(a) Original height;

The contract of this case is an association agreement with the Plaintiff and Culture Esckydydydydy to jointly hold the exhibition of this case, and the Esckydydye's claim for the sale of scydye's ticket (hereinafter "the claim of this case") is the property of the association whose members are the Plaintiff and Culture Escydydydydydydydydye's members. Therefore, it is unreasonable for the Defendants, who are creditors of Esc

B. Defendant Han-Tech financing, Pacific

(1) As Defendant Han-Tech and Tech, it could not be known that both the Plaintiff and Culture are in a partnership relationship, and even according to the instant contract, culture is entirely responsible for the contract entered into with Atetex. As such, the relationship between the Plaintiff and Etex is limited to a so-called internal partnership which is not a partnership under the Civil Act or an anonymous association under the Commercial Act, and thus, Defendant Han-Tech and the execution of provisional attachment by Defendant Han-Tech are lawful.

(2) Even if the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff is deemed as a partnership under the Civil Act, Defendant Han-Tech invested funds required for the exhibition of this case conducted by the partnership, and cultural transfer from the position of the manager of the partnership. The contract for the lending of works between Han-Tech and Han-Tech is an indispensable contract for the exhibition of this case. Since culture transfer 4,300,000 won under the above contract is delayed, it shall be reduced to 235,000,000 won of money to be paid by the same company between the Plaintiff and Han-Tech as of April 15, 2009 to 2.5,00,000 won of money to be paid by the Plaintiff, but it was transferred to Han-Tech-Tech and to 250,000,000 won of money to be paid to the Plaintiff, which is the owner of the association, and thus, it did not bear the remainder of the money to be paid to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s property of this case and the Plaintiff’s property of this case.

3. Determination

A. Whether the Plaintiff and the culture transfer to another person are in a partnership relationship under the Civil Act

Although internal partnership is related to the internal relationship between the parties concerned, external acts are not in the name of the party concerned or the partnership itself, but in the name of the third party delegated by the union member, the external partnership relationship does not appear externally. In the case of internal partnership, the external partnership relationship does not appear externally, and therefore, only the person operating the business is required to perform a legal act and acquire the right thereby, and the effect of the legal act is only attributed to the internal partnership's account, and there is no separate partnership's property without any direct responsibility.

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and Egypted with Culture: (a) KRW 1.35% of the total amount of KRW 4.135 million required for the holding of the instant exhibition; (b) KRW 1.375 billion of the remainder of KRW 2.756 million; (c) KRW 2.756 billion of culture; (d) the Plaintiff received a certain percentage of the profits; (b) the Plaintiff performed public relations activities on the East Asia Island and related media; (c) the Plaintiff agreed to import and joint management of the joint accounts; (d) the Plaintiff agreed to create and import and joint management of the joint accounts; and (e) the Plaintiff and Egypted with the Plaintiff for Egypted with Egypted with Egypted with Egypted with Egypted with Egypted with Egypt; and (e) the Plaintiff and Egypted with Egypted with Egypted with Egypted with Egypted with Egypted with Culture Co.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to see that the Plaintiff and Culture Lee-soo were in the relationship of a partnership under the Civil Act with regard to the holding of the instant exhibition. The instant contract is based on a contract for the lending of works concluded between the Plaintiff and Edidididilolololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololololo value, and even though the Plaintiff agreed to be held that all matters relating to the display are fully responsible for each other’s contract, unless all duties and expenses are treated or borne exclusively by Edilololololololololo

B. Whether a claim against the twitk is an association credit

According to the provisions of Article 709 of the Civil Act, a partner who executes a partnership's business shall be presumed to have the power of representation for the execution of his/her business, and Article 48 of the Commercial Act does not indicate that a proxy for commercial activities acts acts for himself/herself take effect for himself/herself. Therefore, in cases where a juristic act is conducted by a partnership for commercial activities, even though the juristic act does not indicate that it is intended for the partnership, the juristic act shall take effect on all the partners who are the principal (see Supreme Court Decision 2008Da79340, Jan. 30, 2009, etc.).

It is reasonable to view that the relationship between the Plaintiff and culture is a partnership relationship under the Civil Act, and that culture is a principal agent under the contract of this case and that it is in the position of a manager of an association to enter into an agency contract for sales of diskettes. Therefore, even if the contract of this case did not indicate that it is for an association in concluding the contract, the claim for sales of diskettes against Sket to Sketc constitutes the claim of an association that is not a culture but a claim for sales of tickets against Sketc.

C. Whether Defendant Han Technology Finance, or Tech is a partnership creditor

(1) In the case of Defendant Han Technology Finance

According to the purport of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 and the whole purport of the argument, the defendant Hansung Technology Finance Co., Ltd., the executive partner of Han Hansung Technology Finance and the designated parties of the Korea Culture Content Investment Association on January 16, 2009, shall invest KRW 800 million in culture-related with the exhibition of this case, and shall be paid the sum of interest at the rate of 15 percent per annum during the investment period to the above investment principal, and if the culture-related interest is not fulfilled, it can be acknowledged that the non-party 3 entered into an investment contract to guarantee the rights of the defendant Hansung Technology Finance on behalf of the culture-related interest.

As seen above, when entering into the instant contract, which is a partnership business contract with the Plaintiff and Culture as seen above, 1.35% of the total amount of 4.135 million won required to hold the instant exhibition, 1.35 billion won, which is equivalent to 33.35% of the total amount of 4.35 million won required to hold the instant exhibition, the Plaintiff agreed to raise the remainder of 2.756 billion won, and pay an amount equivalent to 35.8% of the total entrance fees to the Plaintiff’s investment funds and contribution shares, and the Plaintiff agreed to publicize the instant exhibition by using the club newsletter or other related media published by the Plaintiff in addition to the above financing, the Plaintiff and Culture shared a certain amount of the partner’s amount required to hold the instant exhibition, taking into account the allocation ratio and contribution ratio of the partner’s funds, and the Plaintiff’s investment funds and the Plaintiff’s investment association’s investment funds cannot be viewed as having been made by the Plaintiff’s member of the Plaintiff’s association or the Plaintiff’s member of the Association.

Therefore, Defendant Han Technology Finance’s claim is merely a claim on culture transfer, not a partnership.

(2) In the case of Anteex:

According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 16 through 20, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and evidence Nos. 2 (including the number of each of them) and the whole pleadings, we conclude a contract for the lease of the articles to be displayed on the exhibitions of this case on March 208, 2000 10,000, 2000, 300,000,000,000,000 five (30,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 five (0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 five (0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00).

As seen earlier, the Plaintiff and Egyptian are in a partnership relationship under the Civil Act with respect to the holding of the instant exhibition, and the cultural Egyptian concluded a work rental agreement with Egyptian company and brought them into the Republic of Korea is indispensable for the holding of the instant exhibition. Although the Plaintiff entered into a partnership agreement with Egyptian, it is entirely responsible for all matters related to the exhibition as it was based on a work rental agreement entered into with Egyptian, and even if the Plaintiff agreed that both parties are not responsible for the said agreement, it is nothing more than an internal agreement between the Plaintiff and Egyptian, and thus, it cannot be denied that the relationship between the Plaintiff and Egyptian is an association relationship under the Civil Act, but according to the fact of recognition, the Plaintiff’s Egyptian, a subrogated by the Defendant, either the partnership or Egyptian as a member, intended to preserve the claim against Egypt, not all members of the association or Egyptian.

Therefore, the defendant Pacific, exercising the right of subrogation of the defendant Pacific, is merely a claim against the culture transferred to another association.

D. Sub-committee

The claim of this case is a partnership property, which belongs to both the plaintiff and the family members of the culture, and the preservation act of the partnership property can be done by each partner (see Supreme Court Decision 97Da4401 delivered on August 26, 1997, etc.). Under the premise that the claim of this case belongs to the family members of the culture, it is reasonable to deny provisional attachment execution by the defendants on the premise that the claim of this case belongs to the family members of the culture.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all.

[Attachment List omitted]

Judges Cho Jae-won (Presiding Judge)