of KRW 00,000,000, which was deposited by the Corporation, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim a payment of KRW 00,000,000.

to confirm the subsection of this section.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

(a) Transfer of claim for the price of goods;

(i) BB(hereinafter referred to as “BB”) is Seoul Specialized around December 2011.

Goods-price of KRW 00,00,000 by supplying food materials to the CCC under the jurisdiction of the Office of Education in a separate City/Do;

There is a right (hereinafter referred to as the "right to purchase the goods in this case").

BB on December 20, 201, 201, the Plaintiff KRW 00,000,000, out of the instant product payment claim.

On December 21, 2011, the part was transferred, and the CCC notified the above transfer.

Abstract also BB on December 22, 2011, from among the product price claims of this case to DDR

The portion of KRW 00,00,000 shall be transferred, and on December 23, 2011, shall be transferred to CCC.

was proposed.

(b) Decision of provisional seizure;

BB Creditors are entitled to provisional attachment as follows with respect to the claim for the purchase price of this case:

Each provisional attachment decision was served to CCC as follows.

Depository: BB or the Plaintiff or DD

depository cause: CCC, the garnishee, shall pay to BB any debt due

BB served the plaintiff and DD with the contract for credit transfer and receipt and the provisional seizure, etc.

The bonds transfer and takeover contract concluded with the corporation shall be governed by Article 4 (Restrictions on Transfer of Rights) of the special conditions for the purchase of food materials.

It is impossible to determine the validity of the provisional attachment of claims as well as to identify the priority of provisional attachment of claims.

I deposit in accordance with Article 487 of the Civil Code and Article 91 of the Civil Execution Act.

(c) Deposit;

The superintendent of the Office of Education of Seoul Metropolitan Government shall deposit KRW 00,000,000 as follows on February 14, 2012 (Seoul):

North Northern District Court 2012.00 (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit of this case") and February 17, 2012

The reason for deposit was reported to the Board.

D. Seizure of the defendants

(1) The deposit money of this case is KRW 00,000,000 on August 23, 2012, Defendant EEE

The provisional seizure and collection order (Seoul Eastern area) to transfer the provisional seizure to the original seizure against the request for payment

Court 2012TCC on August 28, 2012, received the above claim attachment and collection order. CCC on August 28, 2012

Service was made to the school.

Shed Defendant’s Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Dobong) deposited money of this case as national tax of KRW 00,000,000.

The attachment was notified of the attachment, and it was served on CCC on December 14, 2012.

was made.

(e) Related cases;

(1) The plaintiff shall file a claim against BB and DD to verify the right to claim the deposit payment (Seoul).

The Seoul Special Metropolitan City between DD and D on May 19, 2016 by filing a motion for the District Court 2015da32025)

The plaintiff among the 00,000,000 won deposited by the Superintendent of the Office of Education with the Seoul Northern District Court 2012 Geum 00,000

In addition, it is confirmed that there are claims for withdrawal from DD for 00,000,000 won, and for 00,000,000 won, respectively.

"B" has reached a settlement, and on June 9, 2016, "B" means the Superintendent of the Office of Education of Seoul Metropolitan Government.

00,000,000 won deposited by the Seoul Northern District Court No. 2000 of 2012

In order to confirm that the claim for salary has been filed against the plaintiff, the above judgment shall become final and conclusive at that time.

was made.

Shedward, the provisional attachment authority holder, FF, GG, HH, Defendant EE, and Kim Jong-ri

Deposit against the Director, Co., Ltd. III (hereinafter referred to as 'the holder of the provisional seizure of this case')

On January 3, 2018, 2018, by filing a lawsuit to confirm the claim for withdrawal (Seoul Northern District Court 21036)

Persons entitled to provisional seizure shall be the Seoul Northern District Court No. 2010, the Superintendent of the Seoul Northern District Office of Education

The claim for withdrawal of KRW 00,000,000 among the consigned KRW 00,000,000 is confirmed to be the plaintiff.

Around that time, the decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive.

[Ground of Recognition] Confession (Defendant EE), absence of dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7

Each entry, full purport of pleading (as against the defendant's Republic of Korea)

2. Determination

(a) Benefits of confirmation;

A garnishee may make a mixed deposit, whether or not the garnishee has made a payment deposit, or made a mixed deposit.

whether or not to designate the person under deposit, the basis and text of the deposit, the reason for deposit, the report on the reason for deposit, etc.

There is no choice but to consider the reasonable and reasonable consideration of the mixed deposit, and the mixed deposit is a creditor involved in the repayment deposit.

any other executive creditor in connection with any such execution deposit shall be deemed to have effect as a deposit for performance, and

The deposit is effective as an enforcement deposit (Supreme Court Decision 2013Da75830 Decided February 12, 2015, etc.).

In this case, the superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education shall state the statutory provisions in Article 487 of the Civil Act.

However, in the reason of deposit, "the bond transfer contract and the bond transfer and takeover contract are received and the bond transfer and takeover contract are received."

Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 487 of the Civil Act for the reason that the effect of the pledge and the priority of provisional seizure against claims cannot be known.

Considering that the deposit of this case is “deposited in accordance with Article 91 of the Private Execution Act”, the deposit of this case is mixed.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff appears to fall under a deposit, the Plaintiff shall not be deemed to fall under BB and DD, other than the depositee.

Do Enforcement Creditor's confirmation of the claim for payment of deposited goods against the Defendants disputing the Plaintiff's rights as Do Enforcement Creditor

There are legal interests in seeking action.

B. As to the cause of claim

Demand for distribution shall, where there exists a competition between the creditors, deposit the amount of debt by a third-party debtor and civil execution.

A report on the cause of deposit under Article 248 (4) of the Act may be made not later than the time when it is made (Civil Execution Act Article 247)

Paragraph 1), Article 56 and 57 of the National Tax Collection Act, and the request for delivery and participation in attachment are already made by the tax authority.

Any compulsory execution, seeking a distribution of delinquent taxes by joining a compulsory execution procedure under way;

As such, the kind of demand for distribution, like the demand for distribution, shall be deemed to be the same as that for demand for distribution.

Only before maturity (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 92Da52733, Mar. 26, 1993).

As seen above, the superintendent of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Office of Education who is the garnishee shall demand the distribution of the defendants.

On August 28, 2012, after February 17, 2012, after deposit of this case and reporting the reason for deposit (the defendant).

EE) and December 14, 2012 (Defendant Republic of Korea), all of which are constituted, have no effect, and this company has no effect.

The right to withdraw the portion of KRW 00,000,000 out of the total deposit is the plaintiff.

C. Regarding Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

The plaintiff, knowing the above non-assignment agreement, took over the claim for the price of the instant product even though he knows the non-assignment agreement.

Party BB and CCC company by itself, although it is alleged that Party B’s evidence No. 2 was written.

Accordingly, a non-assignment agreement under Article 449(2) of the Civil Act was concluded by the Plaintiff, and the said non-assignment agreement

It is insufficient to acknowledge that the defendant was aware of it, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

The above assertion by the State is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claim of this case is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

(c)