이 사건 공탁금출급청구권자는 원고임[국패]
The claimant for the payment of the deposit of this case shall be the plaintiff
In the case of a double transfer of claim, the order between the assignee shall not be determined by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor's perception of the assignment of claim, that is, by the date of receipt of the debtor's notice of the transfer with the fixed date or after the date of acceptance with the fixed date.
Confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money of Suwon District Court 2014 Gohap2681
leAA
Korea
oly 2, 2014
oly 23, 2014
1. On April 24, 2014, it is confirmed that the Suwon District Court rendered a claim for payment of deposit money to the Plaintiff for OO funds deposited by the head of Kuwon District Court No. 1209 in 2014.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.
Cheong-gu Office
The same shall apply to the order.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On March 25, 2014, DefendantCC (hereinafter “DefendantCC”) entered into a credit acquisition agreement with the Plaintiff, the representative of DefendantCC’s 49 workers (hereinafter “instant workers”) under a contract for the production of printed materials between DefendantCC and BBA Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “BA”), and DefendantCC transferred the claims to BBA, and upon the occurrence of the validity of the said assignment of claims, DefendantCC entered into a credit acquisition agreement with the Plaintiff on March 26, 2014 (hereinafter “instant credit acquisition agreement”) with the effect that the payment of OO members out of the unpaid wages and retirement allowances of the instant workers and the total amount of the retirement allowances would have been made by OO members of the instant workers (hereinafter “instant credit acquisition agreement”). On the same day, DefendantCC notified BBA by mail with a certified fixed date of the said assignment of claims and notified it to BBA on March 26, 2014.
B. The defendant Republic of Korea, DD excess Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant DD excess"), EE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant EE Co., Ltd.") received provisional seizure, etc. of claims against DefendantCC on the following dates, and served the notice on the third obligor on each of the following dates:
C. BB East Asia did not know whether the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and DefendantCC is valid, and, on the grounds that the subsequent one attachment was received and two claims were notified, the Suwon District Court rendered a mixed deposit of the KRW OO as the depositee of the Plaintiff and the Defendants on April 24, 2014, No. 1209 of the Suwon District Court subsidies in 2014 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).
Grounds for Recognition
○ Defendant Republic of Korea, DD excess: The absence of dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments
○ DefendantCC and EE: Confession
2. Determination
A. In a case where a claim is transferred double, the credit between the assignee does not need to be determined by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor’s recognition of the credit transfer, that is, by the date and time when the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the debtor or after the date and time of the consent with the fixed date. This legal doctrine applies to a case where the transferee and the transferee of the provisional attachment order determines the heat between the obligor and the transferee of the same claim. Thus, the decision of credit transfer with the fixed date and the provisional attachment order should be made after the arrival of the third obligor (the obligor in the case of the assignment of the claim) (Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423 delivered on April 26, 1994).
B. In the instant case, among the assignment of claims, such as processing costs, etc. for DefendantCC’s BB East Asia, provisional seizure of claims, and the date of arrival of notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date under the instant contract (as of March 26, 2014), among the assignment of claims and provisional seizure of claims, the arrival date of notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date under the instant contract (as of March 26, 2014) takes precedence over the arrival date of the original of each seizure or provisional seizure decision of Defendant Republic of Korea, DD excessive and EE. As such, the right to claim the deposit
C. As to the above, Defendant Republic of Korea and DD excess claim is merely a claim against GG, and is not a claim against DefendantCC, even if there is no claim against DefendantCC, it is alleged that the agreement on the acquisition of the instant claim was null and void as a false conspiracy with the Plaintiff. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and rather, according to the evidence evidence No. 5, it is recognized that the amount of unpaid wages and retirement allowances against DefendantCC among the instant workers reaches OO won, and thus, Defendant DD excess's above assertion is rejected.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.