공탁금 출급청구권 확인
The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant corporation B, D, and F Co., Ltd. shall be revoked.
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance except for the following dismissal. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
No. 6 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deleted from 11.
Defendant E, “Defendant E,” in the 6th sentence of the first instance judgment, the 13th sentence, “Defendant E,” respectively.
2. The court's explanation of this part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance as to the cause of the claim is the same as the pertinent part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
3. The reasoning for this Court’s explanation concerning Defendant C, E, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M’s defense is as follows, and the reasoning for this Court’s explanation is as follows: “Judgment on Defendant E, G, H, I, J, K, L, and M’s defense” in the reasoning of the first instance judgment, except for any dismissal or addition below. Thus, this part is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
Defendant E, “Defendant E,” of the 8th Ham Ham of the judgment of the court of first instance, is changed to Defendant C, E, and “.”
The following shall be added below the 9th page 12 of the judgment of the first instance.
3) The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that, after the transfer of credit against the Plaintiff, N’s accounting manager, who was the debtor, consented to the transfer of credit against the Plaintiff without raising any objection to the special agreement prohibiting transfer, and that N’s objection is not effective or N’s consent to the transfer of credit against the Plaintiff, since N did not receive the aforementioned proved mail containing the purport of objection to the transfer of credit.
However, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff did not raise any objection to the N’s special agreement on the prohibition of transfer from the person responsible for the N’s accounting liability, or did not actually receive the aforementioned content-certified mail sent by the Plaintiff from N.
Even if such facts alone, N, the debtor, cannot be deemed to have consented to the transfer of claims against the plaintiff.