공탁금출급청구권확인
1. Plaintiff (Counter-Defendant) and Defendant Korea Pumpt Co., Ltd., Lawivone Korea Co., Ltd., and Han Japanese Co., Ltd.
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff’s repayment period for Taeyang Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Tan Food”) on January 17, 2012 shall be the same year.
4. 16. A loan of KRW 500 million was made.
In order to secure the above loan claims on the same day, Taeyang Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Tyang Food”) prepared a certificate of agreement on the transfer of sales claims (hereinafter referred to as the “certificate of agreement”) to transfer a certain amount of the sales claims (hereinafter referred to as the “instant claims”) held against Taeyang Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “Tyang Food”).
At the time, the amount column and the date of preparation of the instant agreement was blank, and the Plaintiff also granted the authority to notify the assignment of claims on behalf of the solar goods.
As the Plaintiff did not repay the loan KRW 500 million after the maturity date, on April 27, 2012, the Plaintiff stated the amount column of the instant agreement as “the amount of KRW 00 million” and “the date of preparation, April 27, 2012.”
On May 15, 2012, the Plaintiff notified the remaining nursing business of the assignment of claims by content-certified mail along with the instant agreement certificate, and the said notification reached the remaining nursing business on the following day.
(hereinafter referred to as the “transfer of claim”. On the other hand, the Defendant Polett Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Polett Korea”) was the court 2012Kadan4641 on May 22, 2012, and the Defendant B was the Cheongju District Court 2012Kahap358 on May 25, 2012, and Defendant Pool Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Polett Korea Co., Ltd.”).
for the same year.
6.5. Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan2078, Defendant Han Il-il Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han-il”) was the same month.
6.5. Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan2109, each of the instant claims was provisionally seized.
On June 12, 2012, the remaining oil business is questionable about the validity of each of the claims in this case, and it is difficult to find out who is true creditor, and the remaining oil business is repaid.