Since there is no evidence to acknowledge the transfer contract of this case as a false conspiracy, the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted.

Although the transfer contract of this case is invalid as a false declaration of conspiracy, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, so the defendants' assertion cannot be accepted.

2013 Ghana 1134 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

QaA

1. Limited Partnership Company BB Comprehensive Construction 2.PCC 3.ND 4.Korea

August 27, 2013

October 1, 2013

1. The Defendants confirmed that the Defendant’s right to claim the payment of the deposit of the OOO members out of the right to claim the payment of the deposit of the OO members deposited by the KOO members deposited by the KOOO members of the Chuncheon District Court in the year 2012-ladem 1357, Dec. 27, 2012.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 22, 2012, the Defendant’s Republic of Korea (Jurisdiction: Air Force No. 8 Air Force) contracted for the construction of facilities for improvement of the living hall (hereinafter “instant construction”) from the Defendant’s Republic of Korea (hereinafter “the instant construction”) entered into a subcontract for the instant construction project with the Plaintiff on or around June 26, 2012, and the Plaintiff transferred the instant construction cost OOOO (hereinafter “instant transfer contract”) to the Plaintiff on July 2, 2012, the notice was sent to the Defendant Republic of Korea by content-certified mail stating the transfer of the instant construction cost, and the said notice was delivered to the Defendant Republic of Korea around that time.

B. On August 27, 2012, the Plaintiff and Defendant BB Comprehensive Construction rescinded the said subcontract and confirmed the construction cost, etc. to be paid to the Plaintiff by Defendant BB Comprehensive Construction as an OO.

C. Defendant YCC received an order for seizure and assignment of claims against Defendant BB General Construction and a third debtor as Defendant Republic of Korea, with Defendant BB General Construction and a third debtor as Defendant Republic of Korea. On September 18, 2012, the above order for seizure and assignment was served on Defendant Republic of Korea on September 18, 2012.

D. Defendant UDR received provisional attachment against Defendant BB’s claim for construction price payment against Defendant BB General Construction in the Republic of Korea with the debtor as Defendant BB General Construction and the third debtor as Defendant Republic of Korea, and on December 17, 2012, the above provisional attachment was served on Defendant Republic of Korea and confirmed.

E. Meanwhile, on December 12, 2012, Defendant Republic of Korea (competent Prime Minister) seized Defendant BB’s claim for construction payment against Defendant BB’s Defendant Republic of Korea.

F. On December 27, 2012, Defendant Republic of Korea deposited the OOO Won under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act (hereinafter “instant deposit”) on the ground that the claim for construction payment against Defendant BB comprehensive construction by Defendant Republic of Korea competes with the assignment of claims, provisional attachment, seizure, collection order, etc. as above, on the grounds that the assignment of claims, provisional attachment, seizure, and collection order competes with each other (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

Facts that there is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant BB Comprehensive Construction, UD, and Korea], described in Gap 1 through 10, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

In the event multiple transfers of claims, provisional seizure, and seizure and collection orders are concurrent with regard to the same claim identical to the above facts, the priority order shall be determined on the basis of the notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date book, the provisional seizure of claims, and the third obligor of the seizure and collection order (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994), barring any special circumstance, it is reasonable to view that the right to claim the deposit of the OO members out of the instant deposit belongs to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. False indication of conspiracys

Defendant YCC and the Republic of Korea asserted that the instant transfer agreement is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the above Defendants’ assertion is rejected.

B. The assertion of fraudulent act

Defendant RCC and UD asserted that the transfer contract of this case constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to other creditors and that the right to deposit money should not be acknowledged to the Plaintiff. However, revocation of a fraudulent act can only be claimed by means of filing a lawsuit with a court and cannot be asserted as a means of attack and defense in the lawsuit (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da8393, Jul. 25, 1995). The above Defendants’ assertion on different premise is without merit without having to further examine it.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.