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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) concluded a contract for the provision of services with AAAA hotel L&D Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AAAA”) for several years on June 1, 2012, and accordingly, received service charges from AAAri Trit while operating the AAri Tri Trit while operating the AAri Trit.

B. Around June 1, 2012, Nonparty Company entered into a service agreement with AAri Tri Tran with respect to the foregoing Sari Tate during the contract period from June 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013. The main contents of the instant case are as follows.

Article 16 (Restriction on Transfer, Assignment, Sub-lease, etc. of Rights)

2. It shall be deemed that the transfer of the service cost to a third party without the written approval of “A” constitutes a ground for unilateral termination of the contract of “A”.

C. Around August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with AAri Tri Tran with respect to the service supply of the said SPE during the contract period from August 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013.

D. On the other hand, around July 30, 2012, the non-party company concluded a contract with the Plaintiff on the business takeover of the above Switzerland with the Plaintiff around July 30, 2012, and thus, the non-party company suspended the payment of service costs on June and July 2012 and notified the Plaintiff at the time of the Plaintiff’s request for payment, and the notification reached the AAritra on this day.

E. On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff requested AAri Tri T to pay the service cost on June 2012 and July 2012. On August 6, 2012, AAri Tri T paid OO for the Plaintiff on June 2012.

F. On August 27, 2012, the non-party company notified the AAriart of the fact that the non-party company transferred its assignment of claims to the service costs for the six months and July 2012, with a content certification with a fixed date fixed. The above notification reached AAri T on this day.

G. On August 23, 2012, the director of the Gangnam-gu Tax Office under the Defendant’s jurisdiction attached the claims against Nonparty Company AAri Tri Tri Tri Tri Tri Tri Tri Tri Tri Tri Tri Tri Trig, which was the national tax preserved by Nonparty Company. The above attachment notification reached Ari Tri Tri Tri Tri T on August 28, 2012.

H. Meanwhile, on November 1, 2012, AAE deposited OOE (hereinafter “instant deposit”) on July 2012 with the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the principal deposit account under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act with the Seoul Central District Court No. 21421, supra, as the deposit for repayment of the relative uncertainty under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 7 (including several numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The contract for the provision of services between the non-party company related to the Switzerland and the AAri Twit was terminated on May 31, 2012. From June 1, 2012, the Plaintiff concluded a service supply contract with AAri Tran and operated the said SPE. Thus, the right holder under the contract for the provision of services related to the service costs for July 2012 is the Plaintiff, and even if not, the Plaintiff was the Plaintiff, even if not, prior to the Defendant’s notice of attachment reached AAri T, was fully transferred on July 2012 by the notification with the fixed date from the non-party company prior to the arrival of the AAri Twit, thus seeking confirmation that the right to the payment of the instant deposit was the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Determination as to the assertion that he/she is a right holder under a service supply contract

First, with respect to whether the Plaintiff is a right holder under the contract for the supply of services for July 2012 as to the service charges for the foregoing portion, the entries in the Evidence Nos. 2, 4, 6, and 9 are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff had already concluded a contract for the supply of services with the Plaintiff at the time of the occurrence of a claim for the service charges for July 2012, and that the Plaintiff had operated the above Switzerland, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Rather, on August 1, 2012, the Plaintiff and AAAO had entered into a contract for the supply of services with the Plaintiff from August 1, 2012 to May 31, 2013. Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

B. Determination on the assertion of the transferee of the claim

(1) The order of seizure between the person who executed the attachment order on the same claim as the assignee of the claim shall be determined by the date and time when the notice of transfer with the fixed date reaches the obligor and by the date and time when the order of seizure reaches the garnishee (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da24223, Apr. 26, 1994). In a case where the obligor or the third obligor deposits the same claim on the ground that it is impossible for the obligee, the right to claim the payment of the deposit shall belong to the obligee who notified the fixed date most preferentially.

According to the above facts of recognition, since the notice of transfer (the arrival of August 27, 2012) of the purport that the non-party company’s claim for service costs should be transferred to the plaintiff with the fixed date based on the content certification of the non-party company’s non-party company’s claim for the above portion of June and July 2012 (the arrival of August 27, 2012) reaches AAAritratra prior to the defendant’s notification of seizure (the arrival of August 28, 2012), the assignment of the claim against the plaintiff by the non-party company to the plaintiff cannot be asserted against the plaintiff with the above

(2) On June 1, 2012, the Defendant agreed that the non-party company shall not transfer the service cost to a third party without the written approval of AAriart when concluding the service supply contract with the non-party company, and concluded a special agreement prohibiting transfer of the above service cost claim. The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff may oppose the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, by the special agreement prohibiting transfer of the claim for the service cost, on the ground that there was gross negligence on the part of June and July 2012 at the time of acquisition of the above non-assignment agreement, as the Plaintiff knew or was unaware of the existence of the said non-assignment agreement.

As seen earlier, subparagraph 16 subparagraph 2 of the Service Supply Contract, which was concluded on June 1, 2012 between the non-party company and the AAri-art, states that "when transferring the service cost to a third party without the written approval of the Ari-art, it shall be deemed that it constitutes a ground for termination of the Ari-art's unilateral termination of the contract," and it is reasonable to deem that AAri-art provides for the ground for termination of the contract. It is difficult to view that it is a special agreement prohibiting the transfer of the service cost claim.

Even if the above provision is interpreted to prohibit the transfer of claims for services costs, the transfer of claims by the declaration of intention of the party to the prohibition of transfer and the transfer of claims to a third party by violating the prohibition of transfer does not bring about the transfer of claims to the assignee of claims in bad faith or gross negligence. However, if the debtor has obtained the transfer of claims with bad faith or gross negligence and consented to the transfer of claims, the act of transferring claims null and void by the debtor's ex post facto consent shall be confirmed. In this case, unless otherwise agreed, the retroactive effect of the transfer shall not be recognized, and the effect of the transfer shall accrue from the time of the consent (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da47685, Oct. 29, 200). The non-party company's allegation that the transfer of claims for services on June 6, 2012 and July 7, 2012 that the non-party company paid to the plaintiff at the time of request of the plaintiff for the payment of services on July 21, 2012.

In addition, the defendant asserts that the act of transfer of the above service expense claim should be revoked as it constitutes a fraudulent act. Thus, when the debtor performs a juristic act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the creditor, the creditor can file a claim by means of filing a lawsuit against the court for the revocation of the fraudulent act, and it cannot be asserted as a means of attack or defense in the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 78Da404, Jun. 13, 1978). Therefore, the defendant's assertion on this part is without merit.

C. Sub-decision

Therefore, the right to claim the payment of the deposit money of this case is against the plaintiff, and the defendant is dissatisfied with this, so there is a benefit of confirmation.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable and acceptable.