beta
Text
1. C and D claims for the payment of deposit of KRW 99,50,000 deposited by gold No. 11055 in Seoul Central District Court in 2017.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. Defendant B leased from C and D on August 28, 2013, Defendant B paid KRW 100 million as the lease deposit around October 2013.
B. On September 13, 2016, Defendant B transferred to the Plaintiff the claim for the refund of the lease deposit amounting to KRW 100 million against the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the claim for the refund of the instant deposit”) (hereinafter “the claim for the refund of the instant deposit”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) in order to secure the said claim for the loan amounting to KRW 180 million against the Plaintiff (the counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”).
(hereinafter “instant contract for assignment of claims”). The Plaintiff, who was delegated by Defendant B with the authority to notify the assignment of claims, sent each content-certified mail to C and D on the same day on behalf of the Defendant B, and each of the content-certified mail reached C and D on the 19th day of the same month.
C. Our bank, a business entrusted by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) Housing Finance Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”) for the provisional seizure of the claim against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) of the Korea Housing Finance Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Corporation”), was the Seoul Central District Court 2017Kadan3396, and applied for provisional seizure of the claim against Defendant B’s KRW 63,315,85, out of the claim for the refund of the instant deposit amount, against Defendant B’s claim for the advance reimbursement against Defendant B and D, and received a provisional seizure order from the said court on April 3, 2017.
The provisional attachment ruling was served on C and D on May 9, 2017.
C, D’s mixed deposit C, and D, on June 2, 2017, after Defendant B removed from the above apartment, are “Defendant B or the Plaintiff” and “the fact of the cause of deposit competes with the transfer of claim and provisional seizure of claim and dispute over the validity of the assignment of claim” under the Seoul Central District Court Decision No. 11055 on June 2, 2017, which was based on C’s latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 248(1) and Article 291 of the Civil Execution Act.