Confirmation of the claimant for payment of deposit money

The transfer date of the future construction cost claim is valid as the transfer date of the claim with a fixed date is more rapid than the delivery date of the seizure collection order of the Defendants, and the notification date of seizure.

Article 248 of the Civil House Administrative Court

Daejeon District Court of Daejeon District Court 2015Kadan450

Since the appearance of a contract of assignment of claims has been made, this contract of assignment of claims is false declaration of agreement.

shall be null and void.

B. Determination

Since the basic claim relationship at the time of transfer becomes final and conclusive to some extent at the time of transfer, such right

(2) If a substantial degree is expected to result in the near future, such transfer

(1) The assignment of claims in the instant case is permitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da7932, Jul. 30, 1996).

The secured claim is specified as the claim for construction cost as to the instant construction project, and the amount of the claim is also fixed, and it is expected that the claim will be created in the near future.

Since there was a claim for the construction price of this case, the assignment contract of this case with the claim for the construction price of this case

shall be effective.

In addition, the liability to prove that the assignment contract of this case is a false declaration of agreement is the above defendants.

there is no evidence to prove that there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Each entry in Gap 7, 16, 17, 23, 28

If the results of the inquiry and the entire purport of the pleading are added, the Plaintiff’s payment on behalf of the Defendant AA Development Tax.

(A) The fact that Defendant AA’s additional payments are made on behalf of the principal accounting corporation on behalf of the principal accounting corporation.

Defendant AA Development shall pay to the Plaintiff the instant construction cost as a repayment.

It seems that the claims are transferred.

Therefore, the above defendants' assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and accepted.

United States of America

EE and 3

December 23, 2015

January 13, 2016

1. Facts of recognition;

○ Defendant AA Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant AA Development”) is a decision made by the BB group.

Participation in competitive bidding for the improvement of the environment of the village of this case (hereinafter referred to as the "construction of this case")

On March 11, 2014, the successful bidder was determined.

The instant case against Defendant AA Development BB in March 11, 2014 against the Plaintiff on March 11, 2014

The total amount of the construction cost claim 25,374,930 won and the additional amount (hereinafter referred to as the “instant construction contract”).

(hereinafter referred to as the "transfer contract of this case") and BB of the same day.

On March 12, 2014, the above notification shall be notified to the military as a certificate with a certified fixed date of the assignment of the credit. BB

It reached the Gun.

○ Defendant AA Development shall pay the construction cost with respect to BB-gun and the instant construction work on March 13, 2014.

25,374,930 won and the period of construction shall be concluded from March 17, 2014 to May 15, 2014.

was made.

After ○, DefendantCC, Inc., Ltd., a creditor of Defendant AA development

(hereinafter referred to as "D") and E shall seize claims for the payment of the contract of this case.

The collection order, etc. is received, and the details thereof shall be as follows:

○ The BB group has the obligation to pay the construction cost of KRW 24,429,00,00 which shall be paid for the development of the AA.

There is a doubt about the validity of the right transfer, and thereafter, defendantCC, D, and E E

For the reason that seizure, etc. is concurrent, the deposited person is a plaintiff or defendant AA development;

Daejeon District Court BB branch on June 19, 2014 No. 1008, 24,429,000 won (hereinafter referred to as "the instant case")

A mixed deposit was made.

[Reasons for Recognition] A. Defendant AA Development, D: Confession (Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act)

(b) DefendantCC and EE: A without any dispute, A 1 through 4, and B

(a) 1, B or 1 (including branch numbers, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply), pleading

The purport of the whole

2. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

between the person executing a seizure order for the same claim as the transferee of the claim shall have a fixed date

notice of assignment of claims and order of seizure shall be determined after the arrival of the garnishee.

Defendant AA Development (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da24223, Apr. 26, 1994).

The Plaintiff transferred the instant construction cost claim to BB and notified the assignment of the claim to BB; and the said claim

the notice of transfer reaches BB prior to the seizure and collection order, etc. of other Defendants.

As seen earlier, the actual owner of the instant deposit is entitled to claim the payment of the deposit, barring any special circumstance.

The plaintiff is the assignee of the claim.

In addition, according to the statement Gap 4, the deposit of this case is made by the repayment deposit division under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Code.

It is a mixed deposit with the nature of execution deposit under Article 248(1) of the Civil House Administrative Court Act.

That is, the transferee of the claim of one of the deposited parties shall be the provisional seizures stated in the other deposited parties and the deposit.

Written consent attached to the certificate of the seal impression issued by the holder or the right to claim the payment of the deposit against him.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff is entitled to pay the deposit only by attaching a final judgment in favor of the Defendant, the Plaintiff as the Plaintiff is the Defendants.

There is also a benefit to seek confirmation.

3. Determination on DefendantCC and EE’s assertion

A. The above defendants' assertion

The assignment of claims in this case does not meet the requirements for future assignment of claims. In addition, the plaintiff and defendant

AA Development does not have a claim between the Plaintiff and the Defendant AA Development, but it is false.

this case’s claim for construction payment is transferred due to the creation of the claim and its repayment.