amount claimed in respect of the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit shall be KRW 4,737,113,541, as follows:

order of seizure and collection (Seoul Central District Court 2013TTTT 10082) containing reasons;

The above order was served on April 3, 2013 on the Republic of Korea (the competent Seoul Central District Court deposit officer).

3) According to the above facts of recognition, the above seizure and collection order is the small and medium company which is the creditor of s○○.

Pursuant to the agreement that the business bank shall pay money to the Bank from among the original copy of the decision on recommending such compromise.

Part A claim for the withdrawal of the deposit of this case is seized with its executive title and the ability to collect such claim is to be collected.

It is nothing more than the purport of being transferred from SO, and the seizure and prosecution of the above claims in Korea as the Republic of Korea

The defendant A may know the existence of the original copy of the ruling of recommending reconciliation by receiving the order of the court.

D. Re-transfer of the instant refund claim to SO by Defendant 00 Steel and 00 ethyl et al.

Nor can it be deemed that it was known to the point of the ruling recommending the settlement of claims to the Republic of Korea.

Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the notice of assignment of claims has been given to the assignee ○○ as the assignee.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed since it is without merit.

It is so decided as per Disposition.

AB between AB and Switzerland on the ground of fraudulent act against AB

On January 9, 2012, the cancellation of the credit transfer and takeover contract and the subsequent restitution are sought.

Anhon District Court 2012 Gohap84498) filed a lawsuit.

On November 29, 2012, the lower court dismissed the part against the Plaintiff in the main lawsuit of Defendant A Bank.

Go, citing all of the plaintiff's counterclaims, the cancellation of the claim transfer and takeover contract dated January 9, 2012, is avoided.

JA Bank shall transfer to SOO the right to claim a payment of the amount equivalent to one billion won out of the instant deposit to SOO.

of this title. The notice of the assignment of such assignment to Defendant Republic of Korea (the depository officer of the Seoul Central District Court)

Den a judgment was pronounced to the effect that D, which became final and conclusive on December 20, 2012.

E. The Plaintiff’s ground for fraudulent act against Defendant 00 Steel, 00 ethyl, etc. on August 22, 2013

00. Revocation of each contract for the transfer or receipt of bonds between 00 Steel, 00 ethyl et al.

Accordingly, a lawsuit seeking restitution was filed.

On November 22, 2013, the above court concluded on January 9, 2012 between Defendant 00 Steel and SO○.

The above contract is revoked, and the above contract is invalid, and the defendant 00 Steel is found to be invalid.

Defendant Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Seoul Central District Court) by transferring the right to claim the withdrawal of the instant deposit

By making a ruling of recommending reconciliation that the assignment of claims should be notified to a public official, and on December 14, 2013

The above decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive.

In addition, the above court's assignment of claims between 00 ethyl et al. on January 8, 2014 and Switzerland.

cancellation of the acquisition contract, 00 ethyl et al. transfer the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case to Switzerland.

c) notify each assignment of claims to Defendant Republic of Korea (deposited by Seoul Central District Court)

D. The judgment was rendered on February 18, 2014.

F. On March 14, 2014, the Plaintiff made each of the dividend amounts to the Defendants among the instant distribution schedule on the date of distribution.

After raising an objection against the father, on March 21, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution of the instant case.

On the other hand, Defendant A Bank's claim for payment of the deposit money of Switzerland on December 17, 2012

order of provisional seizure(Seoul Central District Court 2012Kadan4985), the amount of which is 649,589,067, and thereafter

The judgment of the court below on the ground that the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to a letter of credit payment order, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment, as alleged in the ground of appeal.

18. The seizure and collection order of the claim, which is transferred to the provisional seizure by the same court 2013TT 31453;

(2) Defendant 00 Steel Co., Ltd. shall pay s○ deposit money to the person holding the provisional seizure.

Attachment and collection order (Seoul Central Office) which cause the amount claimed on March 25, 2013, 3,295,732,716, as of March 25, 2013

Cases of revocation of fraudulent act, etc. by the district court 2013 Tai 9273 and the same court 2012 Gohap75968

(3) On July 19, 2013, the Plaintiff received a decision as an executive title and held as a collection right holder.

Amount claimed in 2,548,708,488 Won2,261,208,188 Of them, this pressure in subsection (a) above 1.1

The seizure and trend of claims, which are transferred to the seizure of this chapter, and the remaining amount shall be additionally seized)

Order of the High Court [the same court 2013 Tai23285, which is the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea on July 24, 2013, the Seoul Central Court

Service was made to the public official of the district court) and each of the above distribution procedures in the status of the collection authority.

The participation was made.

2. The plaintiff's assertion

(a) Defendant Republic of Korea (competent: B tax affairs, Ctax affairs, and Ctax affairs) is between Switzerland and 00 ethyl et al.;

each bond transfer contract shall be subject to acquisition by transfer of 00 ethyl et al. with the knowledge that the agreement would prejudice creditors.

Since it is a bad faith subsequent to the attachment of a claim for refund, the above contract is revoked as a fraudulent act.

the effect of the seizure on the Plaintiff, the revocation creditor, as the Republic of Korea (with jurisdiction: Btax affairs, Ctax affairs)

under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea (with respect to the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea) as to the deposit of this case.

The distribution of the Ctax Office may not be recognized.

B. The Defendant A Bank and the Defendant 00 Steel have already transferred their respective claims in the related lawsuit.

Inasmuch as the assignee of the contract is recognized as the beneficiary of the contract, it is based on the claim against SOO.

No person may participate in the distribution procedure of this case.

In addition, the provisional seizure order dated December 17, 2012 by the defendant A Bank and the defendant 00 Steel on March 3, 2013

25.The seizure and collection order of the original claim is all issued, and the claim for withdrawal of the deposit of this case, which is the seized claim.

It was transferred to Defendant A Bank, Defendant 00 Steel, 00 ethyl et al.; the debtor is the debtor.

There shall be no effect as provisional seizure, seizure, and collection of responsible property not belonging to ○○.

Therefore, Defendant A Bank, or 00 Steel’s dividends on the instant deposit cannot be recognized.

C. Claims against Defendant A Bank, Defendant 00 Steel, and 00 ethyl et al. are the most advanced claims

Defendant Republic of Korea (with jurisdiction: Btax secretary, Ctax secretary) is suspected of being a bond, and such circumstances are

knowingly, it is a third party with bad faith that seizes claims, such as 00 ethyl, etc.

3. Determination

(a) A lawsuit of demurrer against distribution shall be filed by reducing the dividend amount of persons entered in the distribution schedule to whom dividends are distributed to them; and

Inasmuch as the amendment of the distribution schedule or the preparation of a new distribution schedule is sought for the purposes of making it reasonable, the source shall be

In order to win in the lawsuit of demurrer against high-priced distribution, the defendant's claim does not exist.

A person has a right to receive a dividend of money that he/she has distributed to the defendant, not sufficient by issuing orders.

(1) The court shall assert and prove that it is necessary to do so even before the date of the commencement of the contract (Supreme Court Decision 2010Da42259 Decided July 12, 2012, etc.)

A) Meanwhile, a claim subject to seizure is reverted to an executory obligor and is subject to seizure.

shall constitute a part of the liability property of the debtor, and shall constitute a part of the

A. The time when the order of seizure was served on the garnishee (Supreme Court on February 9, 2006).

the debtor's disposal of the claim before the seizure of the claim becomes effective

the creditor may not set up against the creditor, if the creditor had the first attached property.

Even if the disposition is made, the effect of the disposition may be set up against the creditor participating in execution after the disposition.

Since the debtor transfers a claim subject to seizure or provisional seizure, the debtor has a fixed date.

If an obligor satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims by notice, etc., other creditors of the obligor thereafter;

Even if any seizure or provisional seizure is made on a transferred claim, the pressure at the time of such seizure or provisional seizure.

A claim of category has no effect as a seizure or provisional seizure, as it does not exist, and therefore has no effect as such.

Other creditors may not participate in enforcement procedures following seizure, etc. (Supreme Court Order September 3, 2004)

203Da22561, supra.

With respect to the instant case, as recognized earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim for refund of this case

The provisional attachment decision of February 22, 2012 on February 22, 2012 to the defendant Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea) who is a garnishee.

On February 24, 2012, and July 19, 2013, of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the payment of the instant deposit.

Defendant Republic of Korea (competent: depository affairs of the Seoul Central District Court) whose authority is attached and collection order is the third debtor;

2) At the time of July 24, 2013, the claim for the refund of this case was already filed on July 24, 2013

Inasmuch as the assignment of claims to ethyl et al. has met the requirements for setting up against them, each assignment of claims becomes null and void

1) Unless there are special circumstances such as the above, the above refund claim and the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit at the time of service

The provisional attachment order of the plaintiff cannot be deemed to have been reverted to s○○’s responsible property. Therefore, the provisional attachment order of the plaintiff

The seizure and collection order are all null and void.

Therefore, the plaintiff's right to receive dividends in the above distribution procedure is premised.

The assertion is without merit to examine whether the Defendants’ dividends can be recognized.

(c)

B.1) As to this, the Plaintiff’s fraudulent act between the Industrial Bank of Korea and the transferee of the bonds.

A decision of recommending reconciliation to the effect that "retransfers the claim for the refund of this case to S○○ by restitution."

upon confirmation, seizure and seizure of claims received by the Industrial Bank of Korea as the executive title of the decision to recommend such compromise.

The collection order was served on the garnishee on April 3, 2013, and this was served on the garnishee. This was the assignee.

As such, this constitutes a notice of transfer of right, the claim was restored to Switzerland’s responsible property, and thereafter, the claim was restored to that effect.

The plaintiff alleged to the effect that the seizure and collection order of the above claim is valid.

(c)

2) In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements Nos. 2, 6, and 4, the following:

the same facts may be recognized.

A) The Industrial Bank of Korea on July 20, 2012, including Defendant A Bank, Defendant 00 Steel, 00 ethyl, etc.

The revocation of each of the contracts for the transfer and takeover of claims of this case against the authorized transferee due to a fraudulent act

(Seoul Central District Court 2012Gahap523023) filed a lawsuit seeking restitution pursuant to this chapter.

On January 11, 2013, the court rendered a ruling of recommending reconciliation with the following contents, and January 29, 2013:

On February 5, 2013, the decision of recommending reconciliation became final and conclusive.

B) The Industrial Bank of Korea shall have an original copy of the decision on recommending reconciliation as its executive title, and on March 29, 2013.

A. S○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “S○○”) transferred a national tax refund claim of KRW 1.8 billion (hereinafter referred to as “instant refund claim”) in the year 2011 with respect to Defendant Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction A: hereinafter referred to as “S○”) as follows (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract for transfer and takeover of each of the instant claims”), and notified Defendant Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction A: Responsibilities) of the assignment of claims.

On February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff received a claim amounting to the instant refund claim amounting to 2,261,208,188, and the provisional attachment decision was served on February 24, 2012 on the part of the Defendant Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea: Btax secretary, Ctax secretary). The Defendant Republic of Korea (the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea is 00 ethyl Co., Ltd (hereinafter referred to as “00 ethyl”), 00 ethyl Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “0 ethyl”), 00 ethyl Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “0 ethyl Industries”), and 00 ethyl Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “0 ethyl et al.”)’s tax claims amounting to 00 ethyl et al. as above.

C. On April 9, 2012, Defendant Republic of Korea (competent: Atax official) deposited KRW 1,886,048,040 in mixed deposit on the grounds of competition, such as assignment of claims and provisional seizure against the instant refund claim (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

D. On May 15, 2012, Defendant A Bank filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff, etc. seeking confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money (Seoul Central District Court 2012 Gohap40344). The Plaintiff on October 9, 2012