3. 9. Jeju District Court: 40,000 a deposit with gold No. 394 in 2018.

A. According to the decision of Jeju District Court 2016Kadan9628 (principal lawsuit), 2016Kadan12853 (Counterclaim), etc. that became final and conclusive, Defendant B is entitled to receive KRW 40,000,000 from D until March 31, 2018 (hereinafter “instant claim”).

B. Defendant B transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff on February 28, 2018.

C. Defendant B notified D of the transfer of the instant claim by means of a certificate with a fixed date, and the above notification was served on D on March 5, 2018.

On March 6, 2018, Defendant C filed an application for provisional attachment of the instant claim with Defendant B as the debtor, and with D as the third debtor. On the same day, the provisional attachment was decided by the above court 2018Kadan254, and the provisional attachment decision was served on D on the 8th day of the same month.

D On March 9, 2018, the Jeju District Court (No. 2018.3.3. 2018.3. 3. 2018. 4.) deposited a repayment deposit for the creditor in which the deposited person was the Defendant B or the Plaintiff (Article 487 of the Civil Act) and deposited a combined execution deposit against the Defendant C against the provisional seizure creditor (Article 291 and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 4 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. In a case where the validity of the assignment of claims prior to the market is doubtful and it is affected by the validity of the provisional seizure, the current Civil Execution Act recognizes the provisional seizure deposit (Article 291, Article 248). Therefore, the garnishee may make the combined deposit with the creditor’s unaffortable repayment deposit and the execution deposit.

On the other hand, according to the facts acknowledged above, the assignment of the claim of this case made by Defendant B to the Plaintiff is valid. Thus, the provisional seizure order against Defendant B becomes null and void, and the Plaintiff, the assignee, becomes the genuine obligee of the claim of this case.

On the other hand, prior to the enforcement of the Civil Execution Act, the assignment of claims is notified.