2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The court's reasoning on this part is as follows: "No. 1, 2, and No. 2 of Eul's No. 1)" is added as evidence of recognition in the 3th 10th th 10th am of the court of first instance; "No. 1,197,384, and 190 won"; "No. 447,621,740 won are sent on August 16, 2005; and "the provisional seizure notice of claims is deleted" is sent on September 21, 2006; therefore, this part of the judgment of the court of first instance is cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Judgment on the main defense of this case

With respect to the Plaintiff’s claim that the right to pay KRW 1.57 billion among the instant deposit is confirmed to the Plaintiff, the Defendant Republic of Korea has asserted that the claim for confirmation filed against the Defendant Republic of Korea, who is not the depositee, is unlawful.

In light of the evidence of the deposit, the reason for deposit, the reason for deposit, and the content of the person to whom the deposit was made, the deposit in this case falls under the case where the debtor made a mixed deposit due to the occurrence of the reason for the repayment deposit in the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and the reason for the execution deposit in Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act. Such mixed deposit is effective as the repayment deposit for the assignee of the claim, and the execution creditor, etc. related to the execution deposit is effective as the execution deposit. Thus, the transferee of the claim related to the repayment deposit can pay the deposit by submitting a document proving that the transferee of the claim corresponding to the claim to be taken over belongs to himself/herself to the deposited public official. This document includes a final and conclusive judgment in the lawsuit to confirm the right to claim the payment of the claim in this case against the party to whom the transferee of the claim was designated as the person to whom the claim was made or against the interested parties such as the seizure right holder, and since the defendant Republic of Korea disputes the plaintiff's right to claim the payment of this case against the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The parties' assertion

(1) On March 29, 2004, the Plaintiff asserted that on March 29, 2004, the Korea Land Corporation, the garnishee, as a public office, consented to the portion of KRW 1.17 billion out of the transfer of the credit amount of KRW 1.57 billion to the Plaintiff by Donghee Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Donghee Development”) in total of KRW 1.573 billion, and that on September 1, 2004, the said claim was transferred to the Plaintiff with the fixed date with the consent of KRW 1.17 billion in the transfer of the credit amount of KRW 1.3 million, and that the said claim may be asserted against the Defendants. Thus, the Plaintiff has the right of withdrawal equivalent to the total amount of KRW 1.57 billion in the instant deposit and at least KRW 1.21 billion in the credit amount stated in each written consent.

(2) As to this, the Defendants asserted that the assignment of claims in this case cannot be expected to bring about in the near future claims, and that the consent is invalid, and that the transfer claim is not specified in the written consent and that the consent is not given by the certificate with the fixed date written by the public office, and that the above consent cannot be asserted against the Defendants.

(b) Fact of recognition;

In full view of the statements in Gap evidence 5-1, 2, 11-1, 2, 14-1 through 10, 15-1 through 9, and the purport of the whole pleadings in the testimony of the non-party witness of the first instance trial, the following facts are recognized.

(1) The notice and written consent (Evidence 5-1) of the assignment of claims as of March 29, 2004 stated the credit subject and amount as "90 million won for general funds", and the credit period as "three years". However, the credit amount and the transferred bond are stated as "three-year" on March 29, 2004 with the indication of the transferred amount and the transferred bond, and the consent date is stated as "three one hundred thousand won for the assignment of claims and the written consent (Evidence 5-2) as of September 1, 2004, the transfer amount is stated as "three hundred million won for the assignment of claims as of September 1, 2004," the indication of the transferred bond is stated as "Ma-dong Eup, Dong-gu, Seoul Special Self-Governing Province (number 1 omitted)", and the consent date is stated as " August 2004."

(2) Meanwhile, the notification and written consent of the assignment of each of the above assignment shall be written by the Plaintiff’s employee and the representative director of the same scam Development’s consent (not later than the consent date) and sent to North Korea’s branch office prior to the Korea Land Corporation through facsimile and then sent it to the Plaintiff by the head of the relevant branch office, and then sent it to the Plaintiff.

(3) In addition to the instant land from the Korea Land Corporation, Dong-hee purchased the land of the Dobong-dong, Dong-dong, Dong-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 2 omitted) in addition to the instant land. The land was loaned by the Plaintiff on March 29, 2004 and the intermediate payment was paid from the Plaintiff on September 1, 2004.

(4) Donghee Development paid part payments at intervals of six months from August 19, 2007 pursuant to the instant contract for sale in lots. The payment date did not pay late payment for the third part payment as of February 19, 2004, and the overdue interest and the payment date for the third part payment after August 19, 2004, and it did not pay the demand for payment over several occasions of the Korea Land Corporation. Ultimately, the instant contract for sale in lots was cancelled.

(c) Assignment of future bonds;

(1) In a case where a certain degree of basic claim relationship at the time of transfer has become final and conclusive, it is possible to specify the right, and where it is expected to occur in the near future, it can be transferred (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da21624, July 25, 1997; 95Da7932, Jul. 30, 1996, etc.).

(2) First, as to whether the claim for the return of the sale price is specified, if it is possible to recognize the identity of the claim by distinguishing the claim for the purpose of the transfer from other claim in terms of social norms, and even if the claim for the purpose of the transfer at the time of the transfer is not determined, if the standard is established to determine the due date of the obligation, the transfer of the claim shall be deemed valid. If the sale price is cancelled with the Korea Land Corporation, i.e., the claim for the return of the sale price to be held against the Korea Land Corporation, i.e., the claim for the creditor and debtor, the type and cause of the claim, and the contents of the payment already determined, and its identity can be recognized by distinguishing it from other claims. In addition, since the first and second development at the time of the transfer of the sale price is not known in advance, it is not determined from the Korea Land Corporation that the amount of the sale price was returned from the Korea Land Corporation at the time of the cancellation of the sale contract, the standard for the return of the sale price and the amount of the sale price should be deducted from the sale price.

(3) Next, with regard to the fact that the claim for the return of the sale price to the Korea Land Corporation at the time of the transfer of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment, could have been expected to occur in the near future, the cancellation of the contract that causes the restoration of the sale price to the parties would normally be exceptional and exceptional. However, according to the evidence above, the plaintiff is entitled to the transfer of the claim for the return of the sale price to the Korea Land Corporation at the same time in order to secure the claim for the loan to the same time development. The same development did not pay at all the overdue interest on the third time after the transfer of the claim for the return of the sale price at the time of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the sale price at the same time after the fourth time after August 19, 204, and it can be acknowledged that the sale contract at the time of the cancellation of the sale contract at issue was not paid within the short time and the contract termination of the sale contract at the time of the transfer of the sale price at the same time.

(4) Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion regarding the transfer of future bonds is without merit.

(d) Specifying transfer claims subject to consent;

(1) Consent of March 29, 2004

Since a claim may be conceptually and identical rights between the same parties, it is specified by the creditor, debtor, type of claim, cause, date and time of occurrence, details of payment, amount of claim, and due date, etc. However, even if there are somewhat different points in the actual claim date, purpose, repayment period, etc., if it is possible to recognize the claim separately from other claims in light of social norms, it can be said that the claim is specific, so that the interests of the parties can be determined by comprehensively balancing the interests of the parties (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da21624, Jul. 25, 1997, etc.).

As seen in the above facts, it is difficult to view that, in addition to the sale contract of this case on the land of this case, it was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff for the sale contract on the land of Dobong-dong, Chungcheongnam-dong, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (number 2 omitted) and the part payment on the above (number 2 omitted), the sale contract on the land of this case was also loaned from the Plaintiff and paid by the Plaintiff, and there were two claims for the return of the sale price due to the cancellation of the sale contract between Dong-dong development as the creditor and the Korea Land Corporation, the debtor, and the certificate No. 5-1 of the certificate No. 5 of the Korea Land Corporation, stating the phrase of the consent of the Korea Land Corporation, that the land of this case was transferred to the Plaintiff, it is not known that it was the claim for the return of the price due to the cancellation of the sale contract of this case on the land of this case and the land of this case. In light of the fact that the transfer amount and the bond column to be transferred are public.

Therefore, the consent of the Korea Land Corporation on March 29, 2004 is that the transfer of the claim subject to the consent and the transfer of the claim are not specified, and thus it is null and void without satisfying the requirements for the consent. Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is with merit.

(2) Consent of September 1, 2004

According to the above facts, if the sale contract of the land is cancelled, the indication of the claim transferred to the above written consent of September 1, 2004 (No. 5-2 of the evidence A), and the amount of the transfer, the amount of the sale contract of the land is specified as KRW 310 million among the claim for the return of the sale price to be borne by the development of the land in Korea. Thus, the transfer of the claim subject to the above approval and the transfer of the claim are specified.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is without merit.

(e) Whether acceptance is made by a certificate with a certified fixed date;

(1) The term "fixed date" means the date legally recognized as the full evidence of the date on which the certificate is prepared, and means the date on which even the maker or possessor of the certificate becomes final and conclusive that it is impossible to change later. The term "a certificate with the fixed date" means a certificate with the above date, which is stipulated in article 3 of the Addenda to the Civil Code, and which does not oppose any third party other than the debtor, unless the notice or consent of the assignment of claims

(2) Whether the Korea Land Corporation is a public office or office

In light of Article 4 of the Korea Land Corporation Act, etc., the date on which the Korea Land Corporation entered the purport of the consent to the transfer of a claim and the written consent, shall be deemed to be a fixed date under Article 3 (4) of the Addenda of the Civil Act (see Supreme Court Decision 98Da5295 delivered on June 1, 199).

(3) The fixed date.

(A) The consent of March 29, 2004

As seen above, it cannot be deemed that the transfer of claims subject to the consent and the transfer of claims are specified, so the above consent cannot be deemed as the acceptance by a document with a fixed date on the assignment of claims.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is justified.

(B) Consent of September 1, 2004

Article 3(2) of the Addenda to the Civil Act provides that a notary public or legal applicant in receipt of a request for the confirmation of the date shall enter the applicant’s address, name and document name in the fixed date book, enter the donation number in the document and affix a seal on the account book and document. Even in cases where the “day” is omitted in the part of the acceptance date of the notice of assignment of claims by document, if it is possible to recognize the date of preparation in the required account book, etc. prepared by the fixed date book, etc., such document shall be deemed as a document with the fixed date fixed date (see Supreme Court Decision 72Nu82 delivered on Jan. 30, 1973). The above notice of assignment of claims and the acceptance date of the above written consent by the transferor on Sept. 1, 204, the document may be deemed as the date on which it becomes impossible for the originator or holder to change the date later, and the above written consent by the Plaintiff to receive the registered mail may not be deemed as a document with the above written consent of the Plaintiff 20th of the date of receipt of the registered mail as the Republic of Korea.

In addition, the part of the acceptance and extension period of the above written consent is written by the Plaintiff’s employee, and the purport of Article 3(4) of the Addenda of the Civil Act stipulating that “the date on which the said written consent was entered in a notarial deed or the date on which the said written consent was entered shall be a fixed date,” and that the purpose of the fixed date system is to prevent the infringement of the rights of a third party, and thus, it is unreasonable to interpret the said written consent beyond the language and text, and it cannot be deemed as a fixed date.

Therefore, this part of the defendants' assertion is also justified.

F. Sub-committee

Since each of the above acceptances by the Korea Land Corporation does not constitute the acceptance by the certificate with the fixed date stipulated in Article 450(2) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff cannot oppose the transfer of the claim of this case against the Defendants.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the plaintiff's claims against the defendants are dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-young (Presiding Judge)