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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The plaintiff and the designated parties (excluding △△△△) work in the defendant AA Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the defendant company"), and the designated parties are the successors of the network ○○○○○ who retired while serving in the defendant company.

B. On January 13, 201*, the Plaintiff, the designated parties (excluding the △△△△△), the ○○○○○, and the △△△△△△△△△ was partially acquired from the Defendant Company the construction cost claim for the BB Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B Construction”) on January 13, 201.

(c) The amount of the claim for the construction cost received from the Defendant Company is Plaintiff***,**,***, Appointed*,**,***, Appointed*,**, Appointed*,**, Appointed*,***, Appointed*,**,***, Appointed*,***,**, Appointed*,**,**,***,**, Selection, Selection***,***,**,****,**, Selection***,***,***,***,**,***, Selection****,***,***, Selection*****,***, Selection***, ****,***,**,**,**,**,**,****,**,**,****,***,*****,********,***************************

D. On January 31, 201, Defendant 1, Defendant 2, Defendant 3, Defendant 4, and Defendant 5 received part of the claim for the construction payment of this case from the Defendant Company, Defendant 7 received part of the claim for the construction payment of this case from the Defendant Company, Defendant 2 received on February 2, 201* District Court* * 201*, Defendant 2**, Defendant 5 March 5, 201* District Court 201*** by heading under subparagraph *.

E. Defendant 8 (the trade name before the change was referred to as “stock company’s knivers,” and changed to the trade name on January 15, 2013, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant 8”) seized the instant claim for the construction cost.****** District Court 201****. Defendant Republic of Korea (CC) seized the instant claim for the construction cost based on the disposition on default.

F. Each assignment of claims by the Plaintiff, Appointors (excluding △△△△), and ○○○○, each notification of assignment of claims by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, each notification of provisional seizure by Defendant 7, and 2, each decision of provisional seizure by Defendant 8, the decision of seizure by claims by Defendant 8, and the notification of seizure by claims by Defendant Republic of Korea reached BB Construction, a third debtor, are as follows:

No.

Parties

Date of arrival

1

Plaintiff, Appointors (excluding △△△), ○○, and the place of a stop;

* January 16, 2010

2

* February 1, 201*

3

* February 6, 2010

4

* March 6, 2010

5

* March 28, 201*

6

* March 28, 201*

G. BB Construction, on April 3, 201, competition with the assignment of claims, provisional seizure of claims, seizure and collection order on April 3, 201*****,***,*** the deposited person designated as the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff, the designated person (excluding △△△△△△), the address in which the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff, the designated person (excluding △△△△△△), the address in which the Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5 was located, and*** the district court 201*******.

H. ○○○○○ died thereafter, and △△△△△△△△ was concluded between the successors of ○○○○○○ by way of an agreement on the division of inherited property on March 5, 2017* AB construction solely succeeded to the claims arising from BB construction upon the agreement on the division of inherited property.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 2 through 16 (including tentative number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

(a) Relevant legal principles;

In a case where a claim is transferred doublely, the obligor’s perception of the assignment of claim, i.e., the notification of the transfer with a fixed date, at the time when the obligor reaches the obligor, or at the time when the consent with a fixed date has been given, rather than by the prior date attached to the notification or consent, and such legal doctrine also applies in a case where the obligor determines a heat between the obligor and the assignee of the provisional seizure order with respect to the same claim. Thus, the ruling of the transfer of claim with a fixed date and the notification of provisional seizure order shall be made after the arrival of the garnishee (the obligor in the case of the assignment of claim) of the original copy of the provisional seizure order. In addition, if the notification of the assignment of claim reaches the same date, it shall be presumed that the prior relation has been reached simultaneously unless there is any proof otherwise (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2422

B. Determination

1) As seen in Paragraph 1, the Plaintiff, the designated parties (excluding the △△△△△), the ○○○○○, and the △△△△△△△△ are presumed to have reached the same time without any other proof as to the claim for the construction of this case from the Defendant Company, by reaching the BB construction prior to the notification of the assignment of the claim, the notification of the provisional seizure of each claim by Defendant 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, the notification of the provisional seizure by Defendant 7, and Defendant 2, the notification of the provisional seizure by Defendant 8, the decision of seizure of claims by Defendant 8, and the notification of seizure by Defendant Republic of Korea.

2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff and the designated parties have the right to claim the return of deposit money as to each amount stated in the column for the refund of deposit money for each of the designated parties who divided the total sum of the contract price claims****************************** as to each amount stated in the column for the refund of deposit money for each of the designated parties.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. Defendant 1, 2, 5, and 7’s assertion

1) The Defendants asserted to the effect that the Defendants, prior to the Plaintiff, the designated parties (excluding △△△△△), and the Defendant Company, prior to the Plaintiff and the designated parties, should receive reimbursement of the claim, such as wages, in preference to the designated parties, and that the Plaintiff, the designated parties (excluding △△△△), and the ○○○○, excluded the Defendants, and received the instant claim from the Defendant Company for the instant construction cost from the Defendant Company

2) According to the documents submitted by the Defendants, the Defendants were working in the Defendant Company, and the Plaintiff, designated parties (excluding △△△△), and ○○○ withdrawn from the Defendant Company before receiving the instant claim for the construction payment from the Defendant Company, and the Defendants’ wages and retirement allowances were overdue.

3) However, as seen in Paragraph 1, Defendant 1, 2, and 5’s notification of the assignment of claims and the provisional seizure order of Defendant 7 by Defendant 3 is delayed than the notification of the assignment of claims and provisional seizure order of the Plaintiff, the designated parties (excluding △△△△△△), and ○○○○○○○○, the Defendants cannot oppose the Plaintiff and the designated parties by the notification of the assignment of claims and provisional seizure order, and the Defendants cannot oppose the Plaintiff and the designated parties, and the Plaintiff, the designated parties (excluding △△△△△△), and the ○○○○○ may not be deemed null and void as it violates Article 38 of the Labor Standards Act in order

B. Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

1) Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the Plaintiffs did not specify the claims acquired from Defendant Company, and that the notification of the assignment of claims was not made by Defendant Company, the assignment of claims, by the Defendant Company. However, according to the respective entries (including additional numbers) in the evidence Nos. 3 through 14, the Plaintiffs’ claims acquired by the Plaintiffs were specified as the construction cost claims held by the Defendant Company against BB Construction, and the fact that Defendant Company, the assignment of claims, was recognized as having notified the transfer of claims to BB Construction, and thus, Defendant Republic of Korea’s above assertion

2) In addition, Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the receipt by the Plaintiffs of the instant claim for the construction price by the Defendant Company by assignment is null and void in violation of a non-assignment agreement as to the instant claim for the construction price. However, there is no evidence to prove that the instant claim for the construction price was non-assignment agreement or that the Plaintiffs knew of the instant claim for the construction price by the Defendant Company at

4. Conclusion

All claims filed by the Plaintiff and the designated parties against the Defendants are reasonable, and they are decided as per Disposition.