Notice of the transfer of claims is recognized as being in an objective state with which the content of the notice is known, and is sufficient.

The notice of the assignment of claims is recognized as being in an objective state where the obligor is able to know the content of the notice under social norms even at a place that does not fall under the address, residence, place of business, office, etc. of the obligor under the Civil Procedure Act.

Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act

2013 Gohap 48879 Demanding confirmation of a claim for payment of deposit money

○ Kim

Republic of Korea Overseas2

January 22, 2014

February 12, 2014

1. On November 6, 2013, 201, the rehabilitation company and △△ Industrial Development Company confirmed that the right to deposit money deposited by ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ in 2013 is the Plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not in dispute between the Plaintiff, Defendant Kim △△△△, and the Republic of Korea, or may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions and arguments of subparagraphs A through 8 (including branch numbers), and the overall purport of the arguments. The above defendant is deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Ansan○.

(a) Conclusion of a contract for transferring or transferring claims;

(1) On October 30, 2012, the Plaintiff paid △△△△△○○○○○○○○○○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “△△△△△△”) the rehabilitation secured credit claims, repaid around March 30, 201, less the ○○○○○○○○○○○, which was repaid around March 30, 201, and the remainder of the rehabilitation secured credit claims, and the secured credit claims, ○○○○○○○○, ○○○, ○○○, 469-25, 469-26, 469-29, 469-30, and 469-39 (excluding the above 469-30 land, hereinafter referred to as “△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△○, which was newly constructed on the ground of the instant land, to acquire and transfer each of the above secured credit claims to the Defendant ○○○○○○.

(2) On October 30, 2012, Defendant Kim △△△ was served on the manager of △△ Industrial Development by way of content-certified mail (hereinafter “instant notice of assignment of claims”), and on October 31, 2012, the said content-certified mail was served on ○○○ on October 31, 2012.

B. Attachment by Defendant Republic of Korea and Ansan

(1) On April 19, 2013, Defendant Republic of Korea (the ○○ Tax Office: the ○○○○○○○○○, the debtor industry development, and Defendant Kim △△△, the mortgagee’s right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”) established on May 25, 2004 on the instant land due to the delinquency of capital gains tax and comprehensive income tax by Defendant Kim △△△△△△, and seized the secured debt of the instant right to collateral security (hereinafter “instant right to collateral security”), and on May 9, 2013, the registration of the seizure of the right to collateral security was completed.

(2) On October 8, 2013, on the ground of the existence of the claim of the KRW ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground of the Defendant Kim △△△△△△△, the instant mortgage was seized by the ○○ District Court ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, and the said attachment decision was served on the △△△△ Industrial Development on October 18, 2013, and the registration of the seizure was completed on October 23, 2013.

(c) Combined deposits for the development of △△ industry;

The △△ Industrial Development made it difficult to determine the validity of the above assignment of claims, and the validity of seizure, such as each of the collective security claims, by the Defendant Republic of Korea and Ansan○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on November 6, 2013 on the ground that there is a risk of double payment, and deposited the principal and interest of the instant acquired claim (i.e., the sum of principal ○○○○○○○○○ and interest before and after the commencement of rehabilitation) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant Kim△△○○○○○○○○○○ on the ground of the risk of double payment (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The parties' assertion

(1) The Plaintiff’s seizure does not affect the instant deposited money, since the instant secured claim attached by Defendant Republic of Korea and Ansan○○○ does not include the instant secured claim, which is the instant secured claim. Even if the instant secured claim is included in the instant secured claim, the instant secured claim may not affect the instant deposited money. Even if the instant secured claim is included in the instant secured claim, the seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea’s secured claim and the instant secured claim by the Defendant, which was issued after the notice of assignment of the instant secured claim was issued to the △△△△△△△△, the transferor, and the instant secured claim for payment of the instant deposited money is invalid

(2) As to this, Defendant Republic of Korea shall deliver the instant assignment notice to Defendant Kim △△△△ to the personal office of the administrator of △△△ Industrial Development, and shall not deliver it to the debtor properly. Ultimately, Defendant Republic of Korea’s seizure of the instant assignment of claims is not invalid, since the said assignment of claims is not effective.

B. Determination

Before determining whether the assigned claim of this case is included in the secured claim of this case, we will examine whether the notice of assignment of claim of this case is valid.

A service under the Civil Procedure Act is an act of notification made in accordance with the method of court in order to give a party or any other person involved in the litigation an opportunity to know the contents of a document in the lawsuit, and is not made in accordance with the law with regard to the place of service, the place of service and the person to receive the service, etc., and thus becomes effective upon the arrival of the notification of the assignment of claims. Meanwhile, the arrival refers to the situation where the other party is in an objective state where the other party is able to know the contents of the notification by social norms. As such, the delivery is a more flexible concept, and such delivery does not require strictness as seen above in terms of the place of service, the place of service, and the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the place of service, etc. do not apply by analogy. Therefore, even if the notice of the assignment of claims does not fall under a debtor’s address, residence, place of business or office, etc., as defined in the provisions of the Civil Procedure Act concerning the delivery of claims, it is sufficient that the debtor is placed in an objective state where the contents of the notification can be known by social norms (see, etc.).

According to the above facts, according to the above evidence, the notice of assignment of the instant assignment of claims is served as '○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, an office of △△ Industrial Development Manager ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, which is the office of △△○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○,

Therefore, since the seizure of defendant's right to collateral security and the seizure of defendant's right to collateral security conducted after the notification of the assignment of claim are invalid all, the right to claim payment of deposit of this case shall be deemed to be the plaintiff.

C. Benefits of confirmation

The facts that △△ Industrial Development made a mixed deposit of the balance of the rehabilitation security claim of this case with the Plaintiff and the Defendant Kim △△△△△ as the principal deposit on the grounds that it is difficult to determine the validity of the assignment of the instant claim and the validity of the seizure, such as the respective collateral security claims of the Defendant, the Republic of Korea, and the Ansan○○, and there is a risk of double payment. In addition, the Defendant Republic of Korea disputes the existence of the Plaintiff’s right to claim the reimbursement of the deposit of this case. Accordingly

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is decided to accept it.

It is so decided as per Disposition.