공탁금에 대한 출급청구권이 원고에게 있음[국패]
Seoul Central District Court 2012dan5241306 ( August 20, 2013)
The Plaintiff is entitled to claim payment of the deposit money.
It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was grossly negligent in knowing or gathering the existence of a special agreement prohibiting transfer due to the fact that the Plaintiff was a financial institution.
Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act: Requirements for Attachment
2013Na42853 Right to Demand payment of deposit money
AA
Korea
December 20, 2013
on January 17, 2014
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. It is confirmed that BB, on November 20, 200, deposited by Changwon District Court 200○○○○○○○○○ on the basis of the Geumwon District Court Decision 200○○○○○○○○○○ on November 20, 200, against the Plaintiff.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.
Purpose of appeal and appeal
The same shall apply to the order.
Further, on October 16, 200, the Plaintiff received ○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “B”) from CC’s special lecture (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) for the goods payment claim against B (hereinafter referred to as “B”), and on the same day, notification of the above assignment by content-certified mail to BB was received on the following day, and BB cannot be identified as the obligee of the above goods payment claim, and on the ground that BB was served with the provisional attachment decision from D Bank on November 2, 200, until the provisional attachment decision was made by D Bank on November 200, 200, the Plaintiff and CC, and DB bank deposit as the recipient, thereby subtracting the deposit cost from the price of the goods, the Defendant did not receive the notice of attachment claim from ○○○○○ (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”). The Defendant did not receive the notice of attachment claim from 200,000 won among the parties concerned, and received the notice of attachment claim 14,000.
According to the above facts, the Plaintiff was effectively transferred the claim for the payment of goods fromCC, and met the requirements for setting up against the transfer by notification with a fixed date, and the Defendant’s right to claim the payment of the deposit thereafter is null and void since the seizure of the Defendant’s right to claim the payment of the deposit is based on the attachment of the claim under the premise thatCC, which already lost its creditor’s status due to the assignment of the claim, is not a person entitled
On the other hand, the Defendant agreed to prohibit transfer of the claim at the time of the purchase of the goods. The Plaintiff, a financial institution, naturally, knew the existence of a special contract for the sale of the goods. If the Plaintiff did not confirm the existence of a special contract for the sale of the goods, then the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the claim is deemed null and void because it was gross negligence. Therefore, if a third party acquired the claim from the obligee, it can be set up against the assignee with gross negligence without knowing the existence of a special contract for the transfer of the claim or the existence of such special contract. The gross negligence here means that the Plaintiff did not know the existence of a special contract for the sale of the goods to the Plaintiff even if it was not due to considerable attention to the existence of the special contract for the transfer of the claim, and the Plaintiff did not know the existence of a special contract for the sale of the goods at the time of the sale of the goods at the time of the transfer of the claim to the Plaintiff (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 203Da13630, Jan. 24, 2003).
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the grounds of its conclusion, so the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked by accepting the plaintiff's appeal and it shall be confirmed that the right to claim for payment of the deposit of this case is the plaintiff. It