양도금지특약이 있는 채권양수인에게 조세채권자로서 대항할 수 있는지 여부.[국패]
Whether the assignees with a non-assignment agreement may set up against the assignees of the claims.
As a senior creditor who has the requisite for setting up against him, there is a claim for deposit withdrawal.
Article 449 of the Civil Code, Transferability of Claim
§ 450. Requirements for setting up against assignment of nominative claim
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
1. Purport of claim
Of KRW 956,00,000 deposited by Nonparty ○○○ Limited Company on June 8, 2005 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 10178 on 2005, whichever is 956,00,000;
A. The claim for payment of deposit money of KRW 350,217,305 against the Plaintiff Cho ○○:
B. The right to claim a deposit of KRW 478,316,028 against the Plaintiff Kim ○-○;
C. The right to claim a deposit of KRW 127,466,667 against the Plaintiff U2○○.
confirm that it has been in any manner.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
1. The reasoning for this Court’s instructions is as follows, except for the addition to the last part of Section 2.b. of the judgment of the court of first instance as stated in the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, this Court’s reasoning is cited in the main part of Article 420
2. Additional determination
‶피고는 또한, ○○○○가 원고들에게 제1채권, 제2채권을 양도한 것은 조세를 회피할 목적으로 이루어진 가장행위이므로 무효라는 취지로 주장하나, 이를 인정할 만한 아무런 증거가 없으므로, 피고의 위 주장은 또한 이유 없다.
Finally, the defendant asserts that the assignment of each of the claims in this case is only for securing the plaintiffs' loan claims against ○○○○○, and thus it has no effect as the assignment of claims. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and even if the claim was transferred for the purpose of securing family claims, it does not affect the fact that the plaintiffs are in the status of paying the deposit of this case, and the defendant's assertion also has no reason.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiffs shall have the right to claim the payment of each amount stated in the purport of the claim by the plaintiff among the deposited money of this case. Meanwhile, since the deposit of this case takes the form of mixed deposit with the deposit for repayment and the deposit for execution, the plaintiffs can pay the deposit only if they prove that there is the plaintiffs in relation to the defendant who is the execution creditor of the above deposit in addition to the person who is the execution creditor of the deposit for repayment, so the plaintiffs shall have the right to claim the confirmation of the fact that the above right to claim the payment of the deposit belongs to the plaintiffs. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant of this case shall be accepted for all reasons, and since the judgment of the court of first instance is legitimate, the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.