공탁금출급청구권확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. On January 6, 2011, with respect to D forest land No. 23,428 square meters and 23,428 square meters, which is based on the facts C, the auction procedure was in progress on January 6, 2011, when this court rendered a decision to commence compulsory sale of real estate to E, the said auction court was defective in the decision to permit sale on January 26, 2012, and C filed an appeal against the said decision to permit sale as the debtor and owner, and on February 13, 2012, deposited KRW 38,889,988 as the guarantee to file the appeal in accordance with Article 130(3) of the Civil Execution Act.
F was served on February 23, 2012 on the Republic of Korea, the third obligor, upon receipt of a collection order, for the claim amounting to KRW 480,058,360, and upon receipt of the claim amounting to KRW 201,00,000, the F was served on the Republic of Korea as the third obligor.
The Plaintiff was served on February 29, 2012 in the Republic of Korea, which is a third debtor, with the amount of KRW 390,022,360 as the claim amount, upon receipt of the order of seizure and collection of the instant claim by the court 2012TT3478.
On the other hand, around February 2012, C transferred the instant claim to the Defendant (hereinafter “transfer of claim”), and around February 29, 2012, C sent notice of the said transfer of claim to the Republic of Korea, a third debtor, to the Republic of Korea.
[Ground of recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1, 7, 8, Eul evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 8-1 and 8-2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff determined the cause of the claim. The assignment of the claim of this case is falsely transferred the claim of this case to the Defendant for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by other creditors, including the Plaintiff, with the intention of evading compulsory execution by other creditors, and this is null and void because it constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy. Thus, although the Plaintiff asserts that the right to claim payment of KRW 388,889,988, which is the claim of this case, is the claim of this case, it is insufficient to recognize that the assignment of the claim of this case constitutes a false declaration with the Plaintiff’s all proof,