2. Of the KRW 202,205,103 deposited byCC by the Incheon District Court No. 5833 on August 4, 2010:

A. The right to claim a payment of deposit of KRW 49,252,90 to the Plaintiffs and the Defendants other than the Defendant AA, BB and D Co., Ltd. to the Plaintiff EE Co., Ltd.;

B. The right to claim the payment of deposit of KRW 65,00,000 between the Plaintiffs and the Defendants other than Defendant AA and BB, with respect to Plaintiff F,

each confirmation.

3. The claim against Defendant EE Co., Ltd. is dismissed.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendant AA and B are borne by the plaintiffs. ② The part arising between the plaintiffs and the defendants except the defendant AA, BB and defendant D D Co., Ltd. is borne by the above defendants. ③ The part arising between the plaintiff EE Co., Ltd and the defendant D D Co., Ltd is borne by the above plaintiff. ④ The part arising between the plaintiff F and the defendant D Co., Ltd is borne by the above defendant.

Cheong-gu Office

The plaintiffs' claims of the plaintiffs against defendant AA, BB and defendant D Co., Ltd. and claims of the plaintiff EE Co., Ltd. against defendant AA, BB Co., Ltd.: defendant A, BB Co., Ltd., and D Co., Ltd., confirm that the claims of the plaintiff E Co., Ltd. to pay the deposit amount of KRW 49,252,90 out of the deposit money as stated in the order of Paragraph 2 are against the plaintiff E Co., Ltd., and the claims of the payment of deposit amount of KRW 6

The plaintiffs' claims for the plaintiffs' claims against the defendants other than defendant AA, BB, and DD Co., Ltd., and the plaintiff F's claims against defendant D Co., Ltd. are as stated in paragraph (2) of this Article.

A. On September 11, 2008,CC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) entered into a subcontract with Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “AA”, and omitted the indication of a stock company when indicating the party involved in the case, which is a stock company, for the construction cost of 2,720,14,700, and for the construction period from September 11, 2008 to January 31, 201, the Plaintiff entered into a subcontract with the Incheon Or-gu Corporation (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction”) that it received from GG for the construction cost of 2,720,14,700, and for the construction period of 31, 2010. The said construction was completed on January 28, 2010.

B. On May 11, 2010, Defendant AA entered into a contract with Plaintiff EE to transfer the instant claim for the construction cost against Defendant AA, which transferred KRW 49,252,90 (hereinafter “the instant claim for the first transfer”). On May 14, 2010, the Plaintiff notified the instant claim for the transfer by content-certified mail with respect toCC on May 17, 2010, and the said mail was delivered toCC on May 17, 2010 (see the table Nos. 3 below; hereinafter “the first notice of the instant claim for the first transfer”); after Defendant A’s June 9, 2010, Defendant A sent the instant claim for the transfer by content-certified mail with a fixed date to the aboveCC on June 10, 2010 (see the table No. 81, hereinafter “the instant notice”).

C. Around May 24, 2010, Defendant AA entered into a contract with Plaintiff F to transfer the instant construction cost claim against Defendant AF (hereinafter “instant assignment of the instant claim”). Defendant AA notifiedCC on May 27, 2010 by means of a certified content-certified mail with respect to the said transfer of the instant claim, and Defendant AA reached the said mail on May 28, 2010 (see the table Nos. 4 below; hereinafter “the instant second assignment”).

D.CC was served with respect to Defendant AA’s claim for the construction cost of this case against each of the following, including the notice of the assignment of each of the above claims, and the notification, provisional seizure and collection order. The specific content is as follows (hereinafter referred to as “the following table”).

No.

Serial of Parties

(a)The amount of claims to be assigned or seized.

Date of service toCC

Jinay

1

H H

Provisional Attachment of Claim (Incheon District Court 2009Kadan18777)

17,776,110

December 28, 2009

2

BB

Provisional Attachment of Claim (Incheon District Court 2010Kadan827)

67,128,460

January 25, 2010

3

EE

Assignment of Claim 1

49,252,900

May 17, 2010

A transferee

Notice

4

F

Assignment of Claim 2

65,000,000

May 28, 2010

5

BB

(1) Assignment of claims to pay preserved claims identical with provisional seizure of claims No. 2

67,128,460

June 1, 2010

6

D

Provisional Attachment of Claim (Acheon District Court)

2010 Chicago30690)

145,556,500

June 8, 2010

7

II

Provisional Attachment of Claim (Acheon District Court)

2010Kadan6877)

29,843,976

June 10, 2010

8

EE

Assignment of Claim 1

(as shown in No. 3)

49,252,900

June 10, 2010

transferor

Notice

9

J

Claim Provisional Seizure District Court

2010Kadan4783)

4,947,400

June 15, 2010

10

KK

Claim Provisional Seizure District Court

State Support 2010Kadan879)

32,145,751

June 22, 2010

11

L concrete

Industry

Claim Provisional Seizure District Court

2010Kadan4931)

2,585,310

June 24, 2010

12

Korea

Attachment of Claims

78,668,200

July 1, 2010

13

M

Claim Provisional Seizure District Court

Ansan Support 2010Kadan2864)

47,891,960

July 14, 2010

14

D

Serial 6 Provisional attachment as principal seizure

Transferred Claim Seizure and

(In the case of Incheon District Court)

2010 Other 18197)

178,079,698

July 20, 2010

15

N

Provisional Seizure of Claim

(Seoul Central District Court)

2010Kadan66364)

70,887,960

July 28, 2010

E. Accordingly, under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the Incheon District Court deposited KRW 202,205,103 as the Defendant A, the Plaintiffs, and the Defendant BB of the instant contract payment obligation (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) on August 4, 2010, based on the following grounds: (a) it cannot be identified who is a legitimate creditor due to multiple notifications of assignment of claims, provisional seizure, and seizure; and (b) based on the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, on the ground that the provisional seizure

[Reasons for Recognition]

(a) Defendant AA: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

(b) Defendant HH, BB, D, K, and the Republic of Korea: The fact that there is no dispute, each entry and the purport of the whole pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including each number, if any)

C. Defendant II, J, LL concrete industry, MM, N: Confession (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Plaintiff EE

If Defendant HH and B excluded the amount of the preserved claim by provisional attachment, the instant deposit remains at KRW 117,30,533 (i.e., KRW 202,205,103 - KRW 17,776,110 of the amount of the provisional attachment claim by Defendant HH ? The amount of the provisional attachment claim by Defendant HB 67,128,460 of the amount of the provisional attachment claim by Defendant HB - The remainder of the Defendants (excluding Defendant AA)’s claims (AA) are all notified of the first assignment of the instant claim, May 17, 2010, or June 10, 2010, which received the second notification of the instant first assignment of claims, and thus, it cannot be asserted against the said Plaintiff. Plaintiff EE has a right to claim the instant deposit at KRW 202,205,103 KRW 49,252,900 of the instant deposit at issue.

B. Plaintiff F

Defendant HH and B’s preserved claim amount against provisional attachment and Plaintiff EE’s transfer amount of claim 1 of this case (i.e., KRW 202,205,103) - KRW 17,776,110 of the claim amount of provisional attachment - KRW 67,128,460 of the claim amount of Defendant HH’s provisional attachment - KRW 49,252,90 of the claim amount of Defendant HB’s provisional attachment 67,128,460 of the claim amount of this case - KRW 49,252,90 of the claim amount of this case) . The remainder of the Defendants (excluding Defendant AA)’s claims (a) were delivered toCC after May 28, 2010 and could not be asserted against the said Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff FF may have the claim against KRW 202,205,103,00 of the instant deposit amount.

3. Determination as to the legitimacy of each lawsuit against Defendant AA and B by the plaintiffs

ex officio, mediation shall be made by stating the matters agreed between the parties in the protocol. Mediation shall have the same effect as a judicial compromise (Articles 28 and 29 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes), and a decision substituting conciliation shall have the same effect as a judicial compromise if a party fails to file an objection within two weeks from the date on which the party receives a service (Article 34(4)1 of the Judicial Conciliation of Civil Disputes Act). Meanwhile, a judicial protocol has the same effect as a final and conclusive judgment (Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Act). Since a final and conclusive judgment has res judicata effect as a final and conclusive judgment (Article 220 of the Civil Procedure Act), in cases where a party who has received a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party files a lawsuit against the other party in the same claim as a prior suit of the final and conclusive judgment in favor of one party in favor of one party in favor of one party, barring any special circumstance, such as interruption

On March 11, 2014, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the claims for payment of deposit money of KRW 49,252,90 out of KRW 202,205,103 of the deposit money of this case against Defendant AA and BB by the Incheon District Court Decision 2013Ga3467, the plaintiffs filed a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the claims for payment of deposit money of KRW 49,250,000 are against the plaintiff E, and KRW 65,000,000 from the deposit money of this case are against the plaintiff F. < Amended by Act No. 123467, Mar. 11, 2014; Act No. 12065, Feb. 25, 200; Act No. 12094, Feb. 29, 200; Act No. 12094, Mar. 24, 201; Act No. 12095, Feb. 29, 2000.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendant AA and B are identical to the above prior suit (the Incheon District Court 2013Gahap33467). As to them, the above mediation protocol has already been established between the plaintiffs and the defendant BB, and as long as the decision in lieu of the above mediation has become final and conclusive, it is unlawful as there is no benefit of protection of rights as there is no benefit of protection of rights.

4. Determination as to the claims against the remaining Defendants other than Defendant AA and B of Plaintiff EE

A. Determination as to Defendant H’s claim against Defendant H

In light of the above facts, the amount of Defendant H’s provisional attachment claim amounting to KRW 17,776,110 out of KRW 202,205,10 of the instant deposit amount of KRW 202,205,10 is deducted from KRW 184,428,993. The amount of the claim the Plaintiff E acquired is merely KRW 49,252,90,00, and the amount of the claim the Plaintiff E acquired is merely KRW 49,252,90. Thus, Defendant H’s rights are not infringed.

Therefore, Plaintiff EE is in the position of claiming a claim for payment of deposit of KRW 49,252,90 out of the instant deposit as the transferee of the first claim against Defendant H.

B. Determination as to the claims against Defendant D, K, and Korea

1) Whether the first notification of the assignment of claim No. 1 of this case is effective

A) In order for Plaintiff EE to exercise the right to claim for payment of deposit money of KRW 49,252,90 out of the instant deposit money in preference to Defendant D, K and Republic of Korea in accordance with the first notification of the instant transfer of claims, the first notification of the instant transfer of claims is valid as the notification of the transfer of claims. In other words, the first notification of the instant transfer of claims should be based on the premise that Plaintiff E E E, the assignee of claims with the authority and the said notification was given as the agent of Defendant AA, the assignee of claims. Therefore, this part is first examined.

B) The notification of the assignment of a claim under Article 450 of the Civil Act shall not be made directly by the transferor, but by a private person or by proxy, and the transferee of the claim may also be made by delegation of the authority to notify the assignment of the claim as an agent. In addition, when the transferee entrusted with the authority to notify the assignment of the claim on behalf of the transferor gives the transferor a notice of the assignment of claim to the transferor and his/her agent pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Civil Act, it shall not be effective even if the transferee sent the notice of the assignment of claim under the name of the transferee without the name of his/her agent, in giving the notice of the assignment of the claim in writing, to the obligor without the name of his/her agent. However, the so-called name indicating that the assignment of claim is for the principal in the agency does not necessarily need to be explicitly and implicitly, and the other party knew or could have known that the transferee was the agent in light of various circumstances surrounding the notification of the assignment of claim, it shall be deemed valid pursuant to the proviso to Article 1115 of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 203Da490, Feb.

As such, although it has been recognized since the fact that the assignee can act on behalf of the transferor, in determining whether the power of representation has been legally granted in relation to the notification of the transfer of the transfer, and whether the demand for the present name has been complied with in the act of acting on behalf of the transferor, the above notification of the transfer of the transfer made by the transferor should be taken into account in light of all the circumstances that only the notification of the transfer made by the transferor was made on the legitimate authorization of the transferor so that it does not damage the purport that the effect as a requisite for setting up against the transferor was made. In particular, it should be bordered as a distortion of the law by processing the notification of the transfer made by the transferee through a valid transfer through a doublepass of the application of the proviso of Article 115 of the Civil Act, which provides for exceptions to the principle of the present name and the recognition of the right of representation, and the application of the proviso of Article 115 of the Civil Act, which provides for exceptions to the above notification of the transfer of the transfer of the transfer as seen earlier.

C) Plaintiff EE asserts to the effect that it was entrusted by Defendant AA with the authority to act as an agent for the notice of the assignment of claims, and that it was the first notification of the assignment of claims of this case. According to the overall purport of the evidence and arguments as seen earlier, Plaintiff EE was notified on May 14, 2010 that it received KRW 49,252,90 out of the claim for the construction payment of this case. The above notification is deemed to have been attached to Plaintiff EE and Defendant A, but there is no evidence to prove that Plaintiff EE was delegated with the authority to act as an agent for the notice of the assignment of claims of this case between Plaintiff EE and Defendant A. Rather, the first assignment of claims of this case made between Plaintiff EE and Defendant A did not explicitly state that Defendant A delegated the right to notify the assignment of claims to Plaintiff EE, and it is recognized that the “transfer” of the first assignment of claims of this case under Article 1(2) of the instant transfer of claims of this case must be described as “CC with the notice of the assignment of claims.”

Even if the plaintiff E is delegated with the authority to act as an agent for the notification of the transfer of claims from the defendant AE, it is difficult to confirm whether the above notification was made as the agent of the defendant AA, and rather, it is difficult to confirm whether the notification was made as the agent of the defendant AA, because it is hard to confirm whether the notification was made, as the agent of the plaintiff AA, because it is hard to confirm whether the notification was made as the agent of the plaintiff AA, because it is the agent of the first assignment contract of the transfer of claims of this case, the plaintiff EE only stated that it was the transferor's notification of the transfer of claims of this case when the first notification of the transfer of claims of this case was made, and that it was difficult to confirm whether the transfer of claims of this case was made with the defendant A's notification of the transfer of claims of this case as the agent of the first assignment of claims of this case, and the fact that the plaintiff A's notification of the transfer of claims of this case could not be seen as being overlapping with the plaintiff A1's notification of the transfer of claims of this case.

D) Therefore, since the first notification of the assignment of claim 1 against Plaintiff EE is invalid, Plaintiff EE’s assertion on this part is without merit, which is premised on the validity of the notification of the assignment of claim 1.

2) Reversion of the claim for payment of deposit money according to the second notification of the assignment of claim No. 1 of this case

A) Relevant legal principles

In a case where a claim has been transferred doublely, the credit between the assignee is not determined by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor’s perception on the assignment of claim, that is, by the date and time of the consent with the fixed date or the date and time of the consent of the debtor, the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the debtor. This legal principle also applies to a case where the executor of the provisional seizure order determines a heat between the assignee and the same claim. Thus, the credit transfer notification with the fixed date and the original copy of the provisional seizure decision should be determined by the prior date of arrival to the third obligor (the debtor in the case of the assignment of claim) (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr.

B) As to Defendant DD

On June 8, 2010, the original copy of Defendant DD’s provisional seizure order reachedCC on June 8, 2010. On June 10, 2010, the fact that the second notification of Defendant DD’s provisional seizure of claims reachedCC on June 10, 2010 is more effective than the second notification of the Plaintiff EE’s claim transfer. In addition, Defendant D’s provisional seizure of claims and provisional seizure of claims prior to the effect of Defendant DD’s claim amount of provisional seizure of claims and the assignment of claims amount of KRW 295,461,070 [17,76,100 + Defendant H’s claim amount of provisional seizure of claims + KRW 67,128,460 (the claim amount of provisional seizure or provisional seizure of Defendant B’s claim amount + KRW 50,500,500,500,500,000,000 won (the claim amount of Plaintiff B’s claim amount overlaps with the claim amount of this case’s claim amount of KRW 50,5050,5050.

Therefore, this part of the Plaintiff EE’s assertion against Defendant D is without merit.

C) As to Defendant KK and Korea

(1) On June 10, 2010, the second notice of the assignment of claim No. 1 of this case by the certificate with a fixed date reachedCC, and the first notice reachedCC prior to Defendant K, Korea’s provisional attachment order, and the seizure of claims is as seen earlier. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff K and K, and K, and the second notice of the assignment of claim No. 1 of this case between the Plaintiff K, K, and Korea are the Plaintiff E-E to claim deposit withdrawal of KRW 49,252,90 out of the deposited money.

The defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the transfer contract of this case between the plaintiff EE and the defendant AA cannot be deemed to have been actually concluded in light of the fact that the seal of the defendant AA was affixed in the part of the transfer contract of this case among the transfer contract of this case (Evidence A5) of this case, and it is unclear whether the transfer contract of this case between the plaintiff EE and the defendant AA was actually concluded. However, according to the whole evidence and the purport of oral argument mentioned above, the defendant's allegation in this part is without merit because it is sufficiently confirmed that the transfer contract of this case between the plaintiff EE and the defendant AA was concluded before the second notification of the transfer of the first claim of this case.

Secondly, the Defendant Republic of Korea also asserts that, at the time of entering into the subcontract agreement with Defendant AA with respect to the instant construction work,CC entered into an agreement prohibiting the assignment of the instant claim for construction cost, and the Plaintiff EE acquired it with knowledge of, or without gross negligence, without knowledge of, the existence of a non-assignment agreement, and thus, the transfer and takeover of

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that there was a non-assignment agreement betweenCC and Defendant AA with respect to the instant claim for the construction cost of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if there was a special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims as alleged by the Defendant in the Republic of Korea, the obligor, etc. may set up against the assignee with the knowledge of the existence of the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims when a third party takes over the claims from the obligee, or the assignee with gross negligence by failing to know the existence of such special agreement. However, a third party’s bad faith or gross negligence must be asserted and proved by the person who intends to set up against the assignee by the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims (see, e.g., Article 449(2) of the Civil Act and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8310, May 13, 2010). There is no evidence supporting that the Plaintiff E, who acquired the claims, was aware of the existence of the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims or was gross negligence

C. As to Defendant II, J, LL concrete industry, MM, N

Plaintiff EE and Defendant II, J, LL concrete industry, MM, and N pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, the above Defendants’ above assertion is deemed to have been led to confession. Accordingly, Plaintiff EE and Defendant II, J, LL concrete industry, MM, and N, the right to claim a deposit payment of KRW 49,252,90 out of the instant deposit amount is against Plaintiff EE.

5. Determination as to the remainder of the Defendants other than Defendant AA and BB by Plaintiff F

A. Determination as to the claims against Defendant H, D, K, and Korea

1) Determination as to the cause of claim

In light of the above legal principles, the notice of the assignment of claims with the fixed date is determined by the date and time when the notice of the assignment of claims reaches the debtor and the original copy of the decision of provisional attachment or seizure order delivered to the third debtor. In light of the above legal principles, the notice of the second assignment of claims of this case by the certificate with the fixed date reachesCC on May 28, 2010 and reachedCC prior to the notice of the attachment of claims of Defendant D, K, Korea, and the attachment of claims of this case, and the notification of the assignment of claims of this case reachedCC on May 28, 2010. The above facts are as follows: (a) at KRW 202,205,103 of the deposit money of this case and KRW 17,76,110, KRW 67,128,460, KRW 460 of the claim amount of Defendant H's provisional attachment, and KRW 60,360,475,705,000 and KRW 367,407,705,07.30

2) Determination as to Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Defendant Republic of Korea, at the time of entering into a subcontract with Defendant AA with respect to the instant construction work, entered into an agreement prohibiting the assignment of the instant claim for construction cost, and Plaintiff F, who knew of, or did not know by gross negligence, the existence of a non-assignment agreement, asserts that the transfer and takeover of Plaintiff F’s claim is null and void.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize that there was a non-assignment agreement betweenCC and Defendant AA with respect to the instant claim for the construction cost of this case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Even if there was a special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims as alleged by Defendant Republic of Korea, there is no evidence to prove that Plaintiff FF, who acquired the claim, was aware of the existence of the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims or was unaware of such agreement by gross negligence. Accordingly, the above assertion by Defendant

B. As to Defendant II, J, LL concrete industry, MM, N

Plaintiff F and Defendant II, J, LL concrete industry, MM, and N pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act, the above Defendants’ above assertion is deemed to have been led to confession. Accordingly, Plaintiff F and Defendant II, J, LL concrete industry, MM, and N are the Plaintiff F and the Plaintiff F have the right to claim the deposit of KRW 65,00,000 out of the instant deposit money.

6. Conclusion

Thus, among the plaintiffs and the other defendants except defendant AA, B, and D, the right to claim the payment of deposit of KRW 49,252,90 of the instant deposit of KRW 202,205,103 is against the plaintiff EE Co., Ltd., and among the defendants except the plaintiffs and defendant AB, the right to claim the payment of deposit of KRW 65,00,000 of the instant deposit of KRW 202,205,103 is against the plaintiff F.

Furthermore, the deposit of this case is a mixed deposit where the repayment deposit and the execution deposit are combined. In the case of a mixed deposit, the transferee of one of the deposited parties can pay the deposit only with the written consent attached to the certificate of the provisional seizure creditor, etc., as stated in the other deposited parties and the deposit, or with the final judgment in favor of the confirmation of the right to claim the payment of the deposit. Thus, the plaintiffs have the benefit to seek the confirmation.

The plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants AA and BB are dismissed as unlawful, and each claims against the defendants other than defendant A, BB, and D of the plaintiff EE, and each claims against the remaining defendants other than defendant A and BB of the plaintiff F, are accepted as reasonable. The claims against the defendants by the plaintiff EE against defendant A and B are dismissed as without reasonable grounds. It is so decided as per Disposition.