[1] In cases where a provisional disposition prohibiting collection and disposal of a claim is taken, whether an obligor may file a lawsuit for performance against the garnishee (affirmative)

[2] Whether a third-party obligor may oppose all creditors on the ground of the extinguishment, etc. of an execution claim in cases where a seizure and assignment order was lawfully made based on an executory title (negative)

[3] The meaning of "a fixed date" under Article 450 (2) of the Civil Code

[4] The case holding that where a local government, which is the garnishee, puts and seals the seal on the date of receipt while receiving the notification of the transfer of claim, it can be deemed as falling under the fixed date under Article 450 (2) of the Civil Code

[1] Even if there is a provisional disposition prohibiting collection and disposition of a claim, it is prohibited that the debtor prohibits only from collecting the payment or disposing of the claim from the garnishee in reality, and the debtor may bring an action against the third debtor for such performance, and the court shall not reject it on the ground that the provisional disposition has been taken.

[2] A final and conclusive payment order shall be valid as long as it has an executory power and does not exclude the executory power by legitimate procedures. If an order of seizure and assignment based on an executory title has been duly made, the claims subject to seizure shall be transferred to the executory creditor within the scope of the executory claim. Thus, even if the executory claim has already been extinguished or exceeds the actual amount of debt, it does not affect the seizure and assignment order of the claim. The garnishee as a third obligor shall be discharged completely if he reimburses the whole creditor within the scope of the amount of debt to be borne by the obligor. Thus, it cannot be set up against all creditors on the ground of the extinguishment

[3] In order to oppose a third party as an assignment of claim, it shall be notified to the obligor of a certificate with a fixed date under Article 450(2) of the Civil Code as a certificate with the fixed date. The fixed date column for the fixed date as stipulated in the above provision refers to the date legally recognized as a complete evidence of the date it is prepared, and it refers to the date for which it becomes final and conclusive that it is impossible for the parties to make

[4] The case holding that where a local government, which is the garnishee, puts and seals the seal on the date of receipt while receiving the notification of the transfer of claim, it can be viewed as falling under the fixed date under Article 450 (2) of the Civil Code

[1] Article 248 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 300 (1) of the Civil Execution Act / [2] Articles 229 and 231 of the Civil Execution Act / [3] Article 450 (2) of the Civil Act / [4] Article 450 (2) of the Civil Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 99Da2388 delivered on April 11, 2000 (Gong2000Sang, 1170) Supreme Court Decision 2001Da59033 delivered on April 26, 2002 (Gong2002Sang, 1256) 9Da42615 Delivered on February 9, 199 (Gong199Sang, 471) / [3] Supreme Court Decision 2000Da2627 delivered on April 111, 200 (Gong200Sang, 1181)

Plaintiff (Attorney Cho Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Gui-si (Law Firm One, Attorneys White-soo et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

A bankrupt medical corporation, a bankruptcy trustee of the East Sea Medical Foundation, et al. (Law Firm Dom Law Office, Attorneys O Jae- Chang et al., Counsel for the bankrupt)

may 23, 2006

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 214,646,750 won with 5% interest per annum from March 4, 2005 to April 13, 2006 and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the portion relating to the principal lawsuit shall be five minutes, and the remainder shall be borne by the Plaintiff; the remainder by the Defendant; and the part pertaining to the participation by the Defendant’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor

4. Paragraph 1 can be provisionally executed.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 1,037,797,435 won and 885,646,750 won among them to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case; 5% per annum from July 19, 2003 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case; 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date; 4,150,685 won with 20% per annum from the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the full payment date; 5% per annum from May 25, 2005 to the service date of a copy of the complaint of this case; and 20% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are without dispute between the parties, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5-1, 6-2, Eul evidence 6-3, Eul evidence 9, Gap evidence 13, Gap evidence 15, Gap evidence 16, Gap evidence 20, Gap evidence 22, Gap evidence 23, Eul evidence 24, Eul evidence 25, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 7, Eul evidence 8, Eul evidence 9, Eul evidence 10, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 5, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-3, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-3

A. On April 30, 2003, through Nonparty 3 Law Firm, the same medical corporation, the Dong Seabab Medical Foundation (hereinafter “Dong Seababa medical foundation”) entered into a sales contract with the Defendant on the following terms (hereinafter “instant sales contract”) with respect to the land (detailed address omitted) 1,968 square meters and one lot (hereinafter “instant real estate”). On the same day, the Defendant paid the down payment amount of KRW 245,60,000 to Nonparty 4, the representative attorney-at-law of Nonparty 3 Law Firm.

Article 1 (Sale Price)

The East Sea Medical Foundation shall sell the real estate of this case to the defendant in gold 2,456,246,750 won.

Article 2 (Payment of Price)

(1) The defendant shall pay 245,600,000 won, out of the purchase price under Article 1, to the East Sea Medical Foundation by May 1, 2003.

(2) The defendant shall pay 2,210,646,750 won in the balance of the purchase price, excluding the amount under paragraph (1), to the East Sea Medical Foundation until May 31, 2003.

Article 8 (Defendant's Claim for Damages, etc.)

1. The East Sea Medical Foundation shall be responsible for the obligations of the East Sea Medical Foundation, and shall not be claimed to the defendant, regardless of the rights established on the land and the obstacles prior to the date of the contract under this contract.

(2) The East Sea Medical Foundation shall arrange all rights and obstacles established in the real estate of this case at the same time with the payment of the balance, and deliver the real estate of this case to the defendant together with relevant documents.

(4) Where the East Sea Medical Foundation fails to comply with the conditions under paragraph (2), notwithstanding the provisions of Article 2 (2), the defendant may withhold the payment of the balance of the purchase price.

B. At the time of the instant sales contract, several provisional seizures have been made on the instant real estate, and the Plaintiff was one of the persons holding the said provisional seizures. Examining the developments leading up to the Plaintiff’s establishment of claims against the East Sea Medical Foundation, the following are as follows.

(1) On July 15, 1995, the East Sea Medical Foundation decided to newly build a hospital and delegated the authority to Nonparty 5 on the purchase of hospital site and the overall construction of new construction. Nonparty 5 promised to subcontract a part of the process to the Plaintiff on April 6, 1995, and borrowed KRW 450,000,000 from the Plaintiff on May 20 of the same year and KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff on April 20 of the same year, respectively. Nonparty 5 agreed to obtain a provisional attachment registration from the Seoul District Court on July 15, 1995 to return the above borrowed amount of KRW 550,00,000,000 from the Plaintiff on the date of the new establishment of hospital, and to return the provisional attachment registration from the Seoul District Court on the same date as the provisional attachment registration of KRW 250,000,000,000 for the above borrowed amount of KRW 25,000,000 for the new construction of the medical foundation.

(2) The East Sea Medical Foundation denied Nonparty 5’s power of representation against the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment. However, on May 30, 2003, when the ruling of provisional attachment was issued to the East Sea Medical Foundation to the effect that it is liable to act as an expression agent, on July 3, 2003, the Plaintiff made an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Agreement on July 3, 2003”). Thereafter, the Plaintiff withdrawn the lawsuit seeking loans against the East Sea Medical Foundation.

(A) The East Sea Medical Foundation shall accept the purport of the plaintiff's claim in the above (case number omitted) loan case, and shall agree and settle the dispute as follows.

(B) The debtor shall pay KRW 550,000,000 from the sales price of the instant real estate as part of the amount claimed by the plaintiff simultaneously with the registration of transfer of ownership (it shall be transferred to the plaintiff without any condition).

(C) Even if the above payment is delayed due to the fault or complex circumstances of the debtor foundation after the provisional disposition against the plaintiff's land was completed, it is not all responsible to the plaintiff, and it is decided to pay the above amount with 25% delayed damage per annum.

(D) The above concession of the Plaintiff shall be effective by this agreement. However, if the liquidation of non-performing loans remains and the liquidation remains, the Plaintiff’s insufficient claims shall be repaid and the payment shall be made in kind when the repayment is not made.

(E) The liquidation performance period for the Plaintiff should be completed at the latest until May 2004.

(f) After the lapse of the above period, there is no objection to the filing of a lawsuit against the Guri-si, East Sea Medical Foundation in order to exercise the right acquired by the Plaintiff under this agreement, and in this case, the East Sea Medical Foundation shall pay all the claims, other than the rights already acquired by the Plaintiff.

C. In accordance with the agreement on July 3, 2003, the East Sea Medical Foundation transferred the purchase price claim of KRW 550,000,000 among the purchase price claim against the Defendant to the Plaintiff on July 8, 2003. Around that time, the Defendant was notified of the transfer of the above claim. Thereafter, the Plaintiff released the provisional disposition on July 18, 2003, and the provisional attachment on the instant real estate on September 13, 2003, respectively.

D. On March 4, 1996, Nonparty 6 issued a provisional attachment registration on March 7, 1996 with the claim amounting to KRW 450,000,000,000 from the government branch of the Seoul District Court, and completed a provisional attachment registration on the instant real estate on March 7, 1996. On July 1, 2003, Nonparty 6 applied for a compulsory auction on the instant real estate based on the above claim.

E. Accordingly, on July 10, 2003, the East Sea Medical Foundation and the non-party 6 transferred the purchase price claim of KRW 221,00,000 among the purchase price claim against the defendant to the non-party 6, and the non-party 6 decided to withdraw a compulsory auction in return. The East Sea Medical Foundation notified the defendant of the transfer of the above claim on the same day. The non-party 6 applied for the withdrawal of the above compulsory auction on July 11, 2003, but the provisional attachment on March 4, 1996 did not cancel the provisional attachment.

F. Meanwhile, the non-party 7 corporation had a claim for the construction cost against the East Sea Medical Foundation. The amount of the claim is KRW 1,716,931,90 on May 31, 1999 with the provisional attachment order issued on June 31, 1999. The non-party 7 corporation and the East Sea Medical Foundation agreed to pay KRW 425,000,000 to the non-party 2, the creditor of the non-party 7 corporation, the non-party 8 corporation, and the non-party 8,295,000,000,000 in the amount of the claim around November 29, 200, when the East Sea Medical Foundation sells the real estate of this case, it shall pay the amount of the claim to the non-party 7 corporation as the purchase price to the non-party 2, the non-party 7 corporation, the creditor of the non-party 7 corporation, the non-party 9,000,000 won.

G. On May 7, 2003, Nonparty 4, the representative attorney of Nonparty 3 Law Firm, the agent of the East Sea Medical Foundation, prepared a letter of confirmation that, upon the cancellation of a provisional seizure made on the real estate of this case, Nonparty 7 corporation deposited the balance of the purchase price from the Defendant to the Intervenor 2, Nonparty 8, and 9 (hereinafter “the instant certificate”). At the time, Nonparty 2 wishes to receive the corresponding amount directly from the Defendant without going through the East Sea Medical Foundation, and Nonparty 4 requested the Defendant to pay the balance of the purchase price to the Defendant at the time of receipt of the instant certificate of confirmation, with the statement that “I request the Defendant to cooperate with the payment of the balance to the above account at Guri-ri at the time of receipt of the balance.” On April 29, 2003, Nonparty 4 requested the Defendant to pay the balance of the purchase price to Nonparty 2, 8, and 9 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “Non-party 1’s address omitted, 200, 2005.”).

H. On July 19, 2003, the East Sea Medical Foundation and the Defendant concluded a contract to modify the terms and conditions of the instant sales contract (hereinafter “instant modified contract”). The instant modified contract prescribed the following as to the method of payment according to the instant sales contract:

(1) The defendant shall pay 245,600,000 of the purchase price under Article 1 to the East Sea Medical Foundation not later than October 2003.

(2) The Defendant may pay part payments to the East Sea Medical Foundation within the limit of KRW 800,00,000 among the land purchase price. The East Sea Medical Foundation shall receive part payments and deliver all the documents necessary for the registration procedure to the Defendant at the same time with the payment of part payments. However, with respect to the amount of claims on the register except for the amount of assignment assignment notified by the East Sea Medical Foundation, KRW 1,196,000,000, Nonparty 10, KRW 550,000,000, KRW 221,000,000, KRW 621,000,000, and KRW 621,00,000 in the presence of the relevant public officials, the said Marine Medical Foundation and the creditor, and the public officials at the time shall receive all the documents related to the extinguishment of claims.

(3) The balance of the purchase price, excluding the down payment under Paragraph (1) and the intermediate payment under Paragraph (2), shall be adjusted, and if the defendant submits to the defendant after arranging the cancellation and impediments of the provisional seizure entered in the register of the East Sea Medical Foundation and any other restrictions on rights, the defendant shall pay directly the balance of the transfer price of claims notified by the East Sea Medical Foundation and pay to the East Sea Medical Foundation by August 29, 2003.

I. As seen earlier, the registration on the restriction on disposal of the real estate of this case was left on March 7, 1996 by the Plaintiff’s cancellation of the provisional attachment registration on September 13, 2003. The Defendant paid KRW 800,000,00 to the East Seacare Foundation as an intermediate payment on the day of the conclusion of the modified contract of this case, and even though the registration on the ownership transfer of the real estate of this case was completed, the Defendant did not pay the remainder of the provisional attachment on the ground of the existence of the provisional attachment by Nonparty 6 and passed one year since the remainder of the sale was not paid.

(j) Upon delay in the payment of the debt acquisition amount, the Plaintiff applied for the payment order on June 23, 2004 with loans of 550,000,000 won and damages for delay at the rate of 25% per annum from July 15, 1995 to the full payment date under the Dong Branch of Daegu District Court (Case Number omitted) around July 2004, and the payment order became final and conclusive on July 11, 2004. The Plaintiff applied for the payment order with the above court order issued on July 11, 2004. The Plaintiff’s payment order was based on the above final and conclusive payment order, the remainder of which the Defendant did not pay to the Dong Seabol Medical Foundation [2,45,246,750 won -80,700,000 won and the assignment order issued on July 15, 1995 [30,000 won and the assignment order issued on the non-party 200,701.

(k) Meanwhile, as the non-party 6 was not paid the debt acquisition amount, on June 26, 2004, the non-party 6 applied for a compulsory auction as to the real estate of this case under the jurisdiction of the Do Government District Court (case number omitted) again on June 26, 2004, and the compulsory auction procedure was initiated accordingly. On January 2005, the plaintiff had concerns over the concern that if the above compulsory auction procedure is in progress, it would result in the non-party 6 and the defendant's accounting division's non-party 11 being unable to receive the debt acquisition amount or the full payment, and the resolution was sought. While the resolution was sought between the non-party 6 and the defendant's accounting division around January 2005, the non-party 6 would withdraw the compulsory auction and cancel the provisional attachment, the plaintiff and the non-party 11, upon withdrawal of the application for compulsory auction and cancelling the provisional attachment, paid the above amount of 108,000 won (the remaining amount of the claim acquisition amount below 500 million won).

Other. Accordingly, on February 24, 2005, Nonparty 11 paid 108,000,000 won out of 550,000,000 won to the Plaintiff with the Defendant’s funds to Nonparty 6, and Nonparty 6 withdrawn the application for compulsory auction on June 26, 2004 on the same day, and cancelled the provisional attachment as of March 4, 1996. On February 25, 2005, the Defendant revoked the registration of compulsory auction as of February 25, 2005, deducting 108,00,000 won from 550,000,000 won to the Plaintiff, and 221,00,0000,000 won to Nonparty 6, respectively. Meanwhile, upon Nonparty 6’s application, each registration of compulsory auction decision was cancelled on June 3, 2005, respectively.

(m) However, with respect to the remainder of the purchase price, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the Defendant regarding the payment of the remainder of the purchase price, and the Intervenor 2 claimed priority on the basis of the instant confirmation and notice, and on December 9, 2004, the Defendant suspended the payment of the remainder of the purchase price due to a defect in order to prevent the payment of the remainder of the purchase price due to the Plaintiff’s debt collection and a provisional disposition for the prohibition of disposal, and the Defendant reserved the payment of the remainder of the purchase price.

2. Judgment on the claim amount based on the assignment order of this case

A. Determination on the validity of an assignment order

(1) According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the full payment to the plaintiff who is the entire creditor in accordance with the assignment order of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

(2) As to this, the defendant asserted that the defendant could not pay the whole amount to the plaintiff since he was issued a provisional disposition prohibiting the collection and disposal of the claim for the remainder of the contract of this case under the Jung-gu District Court (Case Number omitted) by the defendant's application made by the intervenor constituted the plaintiff on March 14, 2005. However, even if there was a provisional disposition prohibiting the collection and disposal of the claim, this is that the debtor is prohibited from collecting the payment or disposing of the claim from the third debtor in reality, and the debtor can file a lawsuit seeking performance against the third debtor, and the court cannot reject it on the ground that the provisional disposition is a provisional disposition, so the above argument by the defendant

(3) The Intervenor 2 is doubtful as to whether the Plaintiff’s loan to the East Sea Medical Foundation reaches KRW 550,00,000,00, and ② the Plaintiff received the order of the entire payment of KRW 550,000,00,000 as to the above 550,000,00, and the Plaintiff again received the order of the assignment of claims, and thus, the part overlapping with the assignment of claims should be excluded from the entire payment. ③ Even if the Plaintiff received the order of the entire payment of the above loan as the execution bond, there is no ground to regard the delayed payment rate for the above loan as 25% per annum, and ④ Even if the Plaintiff fully recognizes the amount of domestic loan and the delayed payment rate, it is argued that the Plaintiff exempted the payment of KRW 550,00,00 without any objection from the Defendant on February 25, 2005, and thus, the Plaintiff made an implied declaration of intent to waive the claim for the entire payment based on the assignment order.

However, the final and conclusive payment order is valid as long as it has an executory power and does not exclude its executory power through legitimate procedures. If an order of seizure and assignment based on an executory title has been duly executed, a claim for seizure and assignment shall be transferred to an executory creditor within the scope of execution claim. Thus, even if the executory claim has already been extinguished or exceeds the actual amount of obligation, it does not affect the seizure and assignment order of claim. The third obligor is completely discharged from all creditors within the extent of the amount of obligation owed to the obligor. Thus, it cannot be set up against the obligee on the ground of the extinction of execution claim. Accordingly, even if the third obligor claims for the scope of execution claim or extinction, the obligee’s assertion that the above amount of damages for delay should be paid to the Plaintiff by 00,500,000,000 won, 205,000,000,000 won, 30,000,0000,000,000,000 won, 25,05,00,0.

Meanwhile, as seen earlier, it is recognized that the Plaintiff calculated the Defendant’s withdrawal of the auction of this case against Nonparty 6 and divided the Defendant’s opinion on the issue of payment based on the assignment order with Nonparty 11 and assignment order at the time of receiving the claim amount from the Defendant. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the Plaintiff received the payment of KRW 550,000,000 and waived the claim for the payment in full. Accordingly, the Intervenor 2’s allegation is without merit.

B. Determination as to the assertion of denial of the intervenor's truth-finding

The part of the intervenor's composition asserts that the plaintiff's acceptance of the whole order of this case constitutes an act detrimental to equity among creditors under Article 64 (1) or (2) of the former Bankruptcy Act (amended by Act No. 7428 of Mar. 31, 2005), and that the plaintiff's acceptance of the whole order of this case is also subject to avoidance under Article 67 of the former Bankruptcy Act, and that the plaintiff's rejection of the whole order of this case (Article 64 (1) and (2) of the former Bankruptcy Act is subject to the bankrupt's act, but the part of the intervenor's composition is subject to the plaintiff's execution act itself, but the plaintiff's refusal power is exercised based on the plaintiff's execution act, but the plaintiff's rejection of the omission of the East Sea Medical Foundation, which did not dispute over the above seizure and assignment order of claims, shall be determined by prior to the

Article 64 of the Bankruptcy Act provides that "any act falling under any of the following subparagraphs may be avoided for the bankrupt estate," while subparagraph 1 provides that "any act that the bankrupt knows that it would prejudice any bankruptcy creditor: Provided, That the same shall not apply to a case where any person who receives any benefit from such act does not know the fact that it would prejudice any bankruptcy creditor at the time of the act," and subparagraph 2 provides that "any act that causes the bankruptcy creditor to furnish any security, to extinguish any obligation, or to harm any bankruptcy creditor after the payment is suspended or a petition for bankruptcy is filed: Provided, That the same shall not apply to a case where any person who receives any benefit from such act does not know that the payment is suspended or

First of all, there is no evidence to support that the omission of the East Sea Medical Foundation constitutes a subject of intentional avoidance under subparagraph 1, and that there was no evidence to support the fact that the representative of the East Sea Medical Foundation at the time when the assignment order of this case became final and conclusive, did not dispute the assignment order and did not harm the bankruptcy creditor, and therefore, the intervenor's assertion that the omission was an intentional omission of the intervenor is without merit.

Next, as to whether the omission by the East Sea Medical Foundation is subject to avoidance of crisis as stipulated in subparagraph 2, the East Sea Medical Foundation filed a petition for bankruptcy on December 9, 2004. The assignment order of this case was confirmed around September 30, 2004, the previous assignment order of this case as stated above. Thus, unless there is any assertion or proof as to the fact that the omission by the East Sea Medical Foundation is subject to avoidance of crisis as stipulated in subparagraph 2, the intervenor's team's crisis is without merit.

C. Determination on the validity of an assignment order

(1) The assignment order of this case is effective for the remaining portion of the purchase price under the sales contract of this case at the time of the order. The remaining amount at the time is 2,456,246,750 won of the sales contract of this case, part payment of 800,000 won, part payment of 771,000,000 won (550,000 + 221,000,000 won + 220,000) of the transfer money to the plaintiff and the non-party 6, and it is not reasonable to view that the above part of the sale contract of this case was paid to the non-party 4 to the non-party 2,456,24750 - 80,000,000 won + 771,000,000 won to the non-party 4's agent account at the time of the above order. Thus, it is not reasonable to view that the above part of the assignment order of this case was paid to the non-party 4.

(2) Determination as to the assignment of claims to the Intervenor 2

(A) The parties' assertion

The Intervenor 2 asserted that on May 7, 2003, prior to the entry into force of the instant assignment order, the part on KRW 425,000,000 among the purchase price claims of the instant case was not effective since the Intervenor 2, on May 7, 2003, which was prior to the entry into force of the instant assignment order, transferred from the East Sea Medical Foundation the purchase price claim of KRW 425,00,000 among the purchase price claims of the instant case, and notified the Defendant of the said assignment of the said claim

In regard to this, the Plaintiff did not transfer the claim equivalent to the above amount to the Intervenor 2, but did not agree on the payment method to receive the balance amount directly from the Defendant when receiving the balance from the Defendant to the Intervenor 2’s account. The instant notice also requires the Intervenor 2 to deposit part of the balance into the Intervenor 2’s account, not the content of transferring the claim. Thus, the fact of transferring the claim cannot be acknowledged, and even if the fact of transferring the claim is recognized, the instant notice cannot be asserted that the Plaintiff cannot oppose the Plaintiff by transferring the claim, since it did not have a certificate with the fixed date.

(b) the sales board;

On May 7, 2003, the intervenor 2 stated that when the defendant received the balance from the defendant on May 7, 2003, the plaintiff 425,00,000 won in the claim against the East Sea Medical Foundation, and the intervenor 2 wants to receive the above amount directly from the defendant, the non-party 4, the representative of the non-party 3 Law Firm representative of the East Sea Medical Foundation, the non-party 3 legal entity representative of the East Sea Medical Foundation, stated that the above amount should be deposited directly by the intervenor 2, and on the same day, the defendant sent the notice of this case to the defendant under the title of the "request for cooperation in the site of the public office building", which read "the request for cooperation of the defendant for the remaining amount, 425,00,000 won out of the balance in the payment of the balance to the intervenor 2's account, it is unclear whether the confirmation document of this case and the notice of this case merely transferred the claim from the intervenor 2 to the defendant."

However, in interpreting a juristic act, if the objective meaning of the statement is not clearly revealed, it shall be reasonably interpreted by comprehensively considering the contents of the statement, the motive and circumstances leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intention of the parties to the legal act, transaction practices, etc. Thus, an agreement between the intervenor 2 and the non-party 2 shall be deposit simply into the account of the intervenor 2. Thus, it would be contrary to the intention of the intervenor 2 who would be able to change the method of payment at any time or to interpret that the defendant is not bound by the above agreement. If the defendant wants to change the method of payment, it would be possible to consider the defendant's statement that the non-party 2 was transferred to the non-party 1, the defendant's statement that the non-party 2 was transferred to the non-party 2, and the defendant's statement that the non-party 2 was transferred to the non-party 3, as well as the statement that the non-party 2 was transferred to the plaintiff 2 and the defendant 2's statement that it would actually belong to the above non-party 2.

Meanwhile, in order to oppose a third party as the assignment of claims, a certificate with a fixed date under Article 450(2) of the Civil Act must be notified to the debtor as a certificate with the fixed date under the above provision. The fixed date column for the fixed date under the above provision refers to the legally recognized date, which can be a complete evidence of the date on which the document was prepared, and the date on which the parties are finally unable to make a subsequent change, and it can be recognized that the defendant, which is a local government, has affixed the seal stating " May 7, 2003" on the notice of this case, and it is reasonable to deem that it constitutes a fixed date under the above provision. Thus, it is reasonable to deem that the intervenor 2 may oppose the plaintiff by the assignment of claims.

Therefore, the instant assignment order is valid only within the scope of KRW 214,646,750, which deducts KRW 425,00,000 from the balance 639,646,750, which was recognized earlier, of KRW 214,646,750.

3. Judgment on the claim of the amount equivalent to the withdrawal of the auction of this case

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff asserts that, around January 18, 2005, the director of the defendant's accounting division, when the plaintiff paid the plaintiff to the non-party 6 the amount of KRW 885,646,750, which is paid to the non-party 6, the plaintiff paid the amount of KRW 885,646,750 to the non-party 6. Thus, the defendant shall pay the amount equivalent to the withdrawal of the auction of this case as compensation for tort, and even if the fact of deception is not recognized, the defendant shall pay the amount of the withdrawal of the auction of this case as compensation for tort, and thus,

(b) Markets:

First, as seen earlier, it is acknowledged that Nonparty 11, who appears to be in charge of payment of the purchase price under the instant sales contract, as the head of the Defendant’s accounting division, withdrawn a request for auction by Nonparty 6, and immediately paid the transfer amount and the full amount of the provisional attachment when the provisional attachment was cancelled. However, since the registration of disposal restriction on the instant real estate ceases to exist when Nonparty 6 withdraws a request for auction and cancels a provisional attachment, the registration of disposal restriction on the instant real estate ceases to exist as provided in the instant modified contract, it shall be interpreted to mean that the Plaintiff who received the order in full for the remainder should pay the full amount of the purchase price as provided in the instant modified contract, and it shall be interpreted to mean that the Defendant would also pay the full amount of the purchase price as provided in the assignment order, regardless of the amount of the unpaid balance or the validity of the assignment order. In addition, the Defendant’s promise to pay the full amount of the purchase price under the assignment order, regardless of the extent of the validity of the assignment order, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise. Therefore, the Plaintiff 111 cannot be deemed to be justified.

Next, it is true that the Defendant acquired full ownership of the instant real estate by withdrawing a request for auction of the instant real estate by Nonparty 6 and cancelling a provisional seizure on the part of the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment. However, it cannot be said that the right naturally recognized under the instant sales contract and the instant modified contract is realized, and that there is no legal ground to obtain any profit. Therefore, the Plaintiff cannot seek a return of unjust enrichment against the Plaintiff, the seller, from the East Sea Medical Foundation. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim for restitution of unjust enrichment is not reasonable.

4. Determination on the claim for damages for delay by the date of payment on 550,000,000 won

The plaintiff also claimed damages for delay from July 19, 2003, which is the date of the defendant's acquisition of the right to claim 550,000,000 won to the defendant from February 25, 2005, the date of the acquisition of the right to claim. However, the defendant and the East Sea Medical Foundation agreed to pay the remainder of the purchase price, including the transfer of the right to claim to the plaintiff, after cancelling all registration on the registry of the real estate of this case. The provisional attachment registration of the non-party 6, which remains at the end of the real estate of this case, was cancelled on March 3, 2005. According to the above facts, the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay from March 4, 2005 after the date of the acquisition of the right to claim 550,000,000 won from the date of the acquisition of the right to claim . Therefore, it is not reasonable to deem the plaintiff's claim for damages for delay from March 4, 2005.

5. Conclusion

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 214,646,750 won in full and the damages for delay at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from March 4, 2005 to April 13, 2006 and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the full payment date, which is the date following the due date of the payment period for the plaintiff 214,66,750 won in full and the remaining claims of the plaintiff 214,66,750 won in full and from March 4, 2005. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Kim Yong-jin (Presiding Judge)