Attachment disposition is for property owned by a third party and has no effect;

The provisional seizure or seizure by the defendant and the Republic of Korea on the basis of a claim against the members of a partnership is limited to the property owned by a third party, and the deposit shall be attributed to the plaintiff in charge of the liquidation of the partnership.

2012 Confirmation of a claim for payment of deposit money

KimA

BB 2 other than

January 25, 2013

February 20, 2013

1. On November 1, 201, the Seoul Central District Court confirmed that the claim for payment of deposit money of KRW 000 deposited by CCC as the gold No. 21546 on November 1, 201 was against the Plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

On September 20, 2007, the Plaintiff made a joint investment of 50% with Defendant BB and 00 won, and entered into an investment contract between 501 and 501, Yongsan-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OCC (hereinafter referred to as “E”) (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”) with 50% of its profits (hereinafter referred to as “the instant investment contract”). On the same day, the Plaintiff and Defendant BB leased the instant commercial building to 10, thereby taking over the status of lessee, and paid the above 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000).

[Evidence] The facts without dispute, Gap 1-13 evidence (including the number number, and the whole purport of the pleading)

2. Determination

1) The investment contract of this case is jointly invested by the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB to jointly operate the FF store in the shopping district of this case and distribute profits therefrom. Thus, the association under the Civil Act (hereinafter referred to as the "association of this case") was established among them, and the claim for refund of the deposit for lease on the shopping district of this case is the combination property of the Plaintiff and the Defendant BB.

2) Furthermore, the Plaintiff and Defendant BB decided not to maintain more the lease of the instant commercial building on May 31, 201. However, the Plaintiff and Defendant BB were dissolved on or around May 31, 201, and, in principle, the remaining property and its value to be distributed to the union members upon the dissolution of the union is determined at the time of the completion of the liquidation procedure. Thus, in principle, the Plaintiff cannot claim distribution of the instant commercial building under the condition that the liquidation procedure is not completed. In addition, each of the records of evidence Nos. 21 (including the number of branches in a natural disaster) and the personal examination of Defendant BB on the deposit of the instant commercial building and the purport of the entire arguments as to this case’s lease deposit, the Plaintiff and Defendant BB agreed that the instant commercial building will revert to the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff and Defendant BB would still be deemed as remaining after the dissolution of the association, and that the Plaintiff’s remaining property and the instant commercial building were still subject to provisional seizure or provisional seizure until the expiration of the liquidation procedure, and that were not completed.

3) If so, the provisional attachment or seizure of the instant deposit, which is the property owned by a third party, based on the claim against Defendant Lee B, who is a member of the instant association, by Defendant JeongO and Defendant Republic of Korea, is invalid, and the instant deposit belongs to the Plaintiff in charge of the liquidation of the instant association, and as long as the said Defendants are dissatisfied therewith, there is benefit of confirmation.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are accepted.