대여금채권을 주장하며 공탁금출급청구권이 우선한다는 주장의 당부[국승]
The legitimacy of the assertion that the loan claim is asserted and the claim for payment of deposit shall prevail.
The assignment of claims is null and void because it transfers false loan claims that do not exist and constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the assignment of claims in this case is valid is without merit.
The appeal is dismissed.
The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.
The records of this case and the judgment of the court below and the grounds of appeal were examined. However, the grounds of appeal by the appellant are not included in the grounds prescribed in each subparagraph of Article 4(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Procedure of Appeal or are recognized as groundless. Thus, the appeal is dismissed under Article 5 of the same Act. It is so decided as per
[Seoul High Court Decision 2007Na76711, May 16, 2008]
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Purport of claim
Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, it is confirmed that the Republic of Korea (the Public Procurement Service) deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2430 on Feb. 4, 2005 with the Seoul Central District Court No. 2430 on Feb. 4, 2005 that the right to claim for the payment of deposit money is the Plaintiff.
2. Purport of appeal
The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
1.Basics
The court's explanation on this part is the same as the statement of "1. Basic Facts" in the court of first instance, and therefore, they are cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Determination
In light of the above facts, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ 2, 600, 666.)’s agreement on the instant loan transfer.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed without any justifiable reason, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is revoked, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff.