[전부금][집33(3)민,13;공1985.11.1.(763),1330]
The consent of debtor not based on the certificate with a fixed date on the assignment of claims and the opposing power against the third party;
Even if a claim for the return of the lease deposit, which is a nominative claim, is transferred and the debtor gave his/her consent thereto, if it is not by the certificate with the fixed date, it cannot be set up against the third party without such consent. Therefore, a person who was ordered to make a provisional seizure as to the above claim, and further ordered to do so, has superior rights by denying the assignment of the above claim, and the debtor cannot deny
Article 450 of the Civil Act
[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 3 others
Defendant’s Attorney Park Jae-in, Counsel for the defendant
Daegu High Court Decision 84Na1430 delivered on March 19, 1985
The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Daegu High Court.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the plaintiff transferred the above provisional attachment order to the non-party on September 10, 1983 regarding the non-party's claim for the repayment of the lease deposit against the non-party, and the provisional attachment order issued by Busan District Court on April 4, 1984, which was delivered to the defendant on September 13, 1984, was delivered to the defendant, and the non-party, as of this day, recognized that the non-party had a claim for the repayment of 7.9 million won out of the lease deposit to the defendant on the ground that the non-party's claim for the above provisional attachment order had already been delivered to the non-party's creditor on November 17, 1982, the above non-party's claim for the above provisional attachment order had been rejected on the ground that the non-party's claim for the above provisional attachment order was not a claim for the above non-party's repayment bond to the non-party company's above non-party's obligee prior to the above provisional attachment order was rejected.
However, according to the records, the above non-party, at the time of pleading, leased the above store on October 31, 1982 and transferred the lease deposit to the above non-party company to secure credit obligation for the above non-party company, etc. on November 7, 1982, and then did not meet the above requirements for setting up against the non-party's transfer of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of claim on the same day after the transfer of the lease deposit to the same company by notarial deed, and the plaintiff did not use the above requirements for setting up against the non-party's assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of claim to the non-party company, which violated the principle of good faith (refer to the legal brief dated 16-9, 1984). Since the non-party company and the non-party's above non-party's defense that the above non-party's assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of claim can be asserted's claim.
Therefore, the judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Jeong Jong-tae (Presiding Justice)