The Plaintiff is entitled to claim the payment of the deposit money of this case.

Since the Plaintiff received the instant deposit claim, as the BB received the instant deposit claim, the right to claim for payment of deposit money on the instant deposit money deposited by the BB is against the Plaintiff, and as long as the Republic of Korea contests the instant deposit claim, there is a benefit to confirm it to the Plaintiff.

Article 766 of the Civil Act extinctive Prescription

2013Gaz. 527787 Deposits

AAA Corporation

Republic of Korea 2

on December 22, 2014

on 13, 2014

1. On November 11, 2013, 2013, it is confirmed that BB made a claim for payment of deposit money against ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ deposited by ○○○○○○○○○○○ in 20 XX years.

2. Of the litigation costs, the part between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Bankrupt CCC Co., Ltd. DD and Korea is borne by the Defendants, and the part between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Bankrupt EE Co., Ltd. FF is borne by the respective Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. EEE Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “GGG”) is the implementer of the new construction project of ○○○○○○○○○○ apartment (hereinafter referred to as the “instant apartment”). GG was financed by BB (hereinafter referred to as “BB”), HH Federation, and III (hereinafter referred to as “III”) with the instant business fund on December 28, 200, with the instant business fund.

B. On December 13, 200, the Plaintiff prepared a letter of transfer (hereinafter “instant letter of transfer”) between the Plaintiff and GG, and on the same day, a notary public received a letter of transfer from the said letter of transfer with the ○○○○○○○○, 200, a notary public drafted for the said letter of transfer with the following content.

1. Where GG is a project operator of the instant project and it is no longer possible to continue the project due to inevitable reasons, such as dishonor and bankruptcy, the following right of GGG relating to the instant project shall be transferred to the Plaintiff under the condition that the Plaintiff (including the Plaintiff’s person designated and the joint guarantor of the project) bears the liability for guarantee to the buyer in accordance with the housing construction-related Acts and subordinate statutes, the terms of sale guarantee,

2. In addition, in the event that the Plaintiff’s name change to the Plaintiff or continued the instant project, the agreement, etc. of the GG is naturally deemed to have been obtained even if the consent or approval of the GG is required, and the GG promises that no objection is raised.

(a) The project site (referring to the land required for the relevant housing project, such as the site and other site for donation acceptance) and all rights thereto;

(b) All buildings on the ground and underground (including buildings under construction), such as houses, apartments, commercial buildings, model houses, construction management offices, etc., and all rights thereto;

(c) All rights held against the seller and the third party in connection with the sale in lots, such as the right to sell in lots and the right to receive the sale price;

(d) All other rights relating to the instant business.

C. BB, HH Federation, and III, which granted a loan to GG for the instant business fund ○○○○○ billion, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a written undertaking related to the loan of project strike (hereinafter “first undertaking”) on December 13, 200, and the Plaintiff obtained a fixed date on the same day. The key contents of the instant undertaking are as follows.

Article 2 (Restriction on Execution of Security, etc.)

1. The Promises have concluded an agreement to provide all or any of the following rights relating to the Project as a security for a loan under Article 1, but they cannot oppose the rights and obligations arising out of such agreement to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot set up against the rights and obligations arising out of the agreement:

1. The project site and all rights in the project site;

2. All the buildings on and under the ground (including the buildings under construction), such as the housing, apartment houses, commercial buildings, model houses, construction management offices, etc. of the project, and all the rights thereto;

3. Rights held against the seller and the third party in connection with the sale in lots, such as the right to sell in lots and the claim for sale price;

② After the date of occurrence of a guarantee accident under the terms and conditions of parcelling-out guarantee, a security right may be exercised only when the Plaintiff’s consent is obtained. If the Plaintiff has a right to interfere with performing the obligation of parcelling-out guarantee due to the security acquired with respect to the right under paragraph (1), the said right may be cancelled or transferred to the Plaintiff at the request of the Plaintiff.

Article 4 (Reversion of Rights to this Business, such as Sales Price Claim and Succession Business Right, in Case of Guarantee Accident)

① In the event that the Plaintiff has decided to perform the obligation to guarantee due to a guarantee accident under the terms and conditions of parcelling-out guarantee or any other cause, the Plaintiff would not raise any objection to the following measures in relation to the present business, and as of the date of the guarantee accident, the rights of subparagraphs 2 through 5 as of the date of the guarantee accident would not interfere with the Plaintiff’s exercise of the right and actively cooperate.

1. Suspension of the payment of sale price or change to the account for the buyer of sale in units;

2. The project site and all rights in the project site;

3. All the buildings on and under the ground (including the buildings under construction), including the housing, apartment houses, commercial buildings, model houses, construction management offices, etc. of the project, and all the rights thereto;

4. Rights held against the seller and the third party in connection with the sale in lots, such as the right to sell in lots and the claim for sale price;

5. A project implementation right and all other rights related to the project (limited to the case where the plaintiff deems that it is inappropriate to continue the project of the original contractor due to a default on, bankruptcy of, or a delay in construction works, etc. without any justifiable reason for a change in the construction works);

(2) Where there is a conflict between the rights acquired in accordance with the loan agreement of Article 1 and the documents related to the security for the repayment thereof and the rights of the plaintiff under paragraph (1), the guarantor shall recognize that the rights of the plaintiff shall prevail.

D. On December 14, 200, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement between GG and the principal debtor as GG, the joint guarantor as the Jinjin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the “sinjin”), and the former trademark; the guarantee creditor as the prospective occupants; and if GGG is unable to carry out the instant apartment sales contract on the grounds of bankruptcy, etc., the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the guarantee obligation that assumes responsibility for the sale performance or the refund of the down payment and the intermediate payment of the relevant house (hereinafter referred to as the “instant guarantee agreement”), and issued the house sales guarantee to GG.

E. GG extended additional loans from CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “JJ”) on December 18, 200, and set up a pledge right with the following content as security for the above loans (hereinafter “instant pledge right”).

Pledger: GG, 00

Creditor and Creditor: JJJ

GG

Limit of Pledge: 130% of the amount of loan under a loan agreement;

Security of Pledge: any balance, deposit, money, or other money, and any interest accrued or payable in respect of or payable to, and any other interest accrued or payable to, the bank account in the name of GG including BB Account (Account Number: ○○○○-○○○○○○○○○○○○, hereinafter referred to as “instant account”) in the name of GG and eight financial accounts in the name of ○○○.

secured obligation: any obligation, liability and obligation in respect of the type and character of the GGG for a pledgee that exists or will arise in or in connection with a loan agreement or any other financial document;

F. The JJ, along with the first commitment, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of undertaking related to the loan of business singinging the same content as the first commitment on December 18, 200, 200.

G. At around April of 200, JJ, GG, etc.: (a) closed part of the deposit account subject to the instant pledge; (b) used only the instant and three accounts; and (c) agreed to change the JJ to the first pledgee. BB entered into a funding management consignment agreement with the JJ, GG, and ○○ around April of 200, and consented to the instant pledge while entering into a funding consignment agreement with the JJ, GG, and ○, and (c) the JJ obtained a fixed date on May 8, 200.

H. After that, ○○, the contractor of the instant apartment, was insolvent, and the new construction of the instant apartment was suspended. Accordingly, the Plaintiff treated GG as a guarantee accident company on October 1, 20x. Under the instant guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff refunded the sales contract amount and the intermediate payment of the instant apartment to the buyer of the instant apartment from December 30, 200 to April 9, 200, pursuant to the instant guarantee agreement.

I. Pursuant to the Plaintiff’s above refund, the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ refund of value-added tax on GG on February 11, 200, upon deposit in the instant account.

(j) Based on the claim for reimbursement against GG on June 30, 200, the Plaintiff received the provisional seizure order on the claim of this case’s deposit account from the ○○○ District Court 200 XX10 Chicago○○○○○○○○○○, and the said provisional seizure order reached BB, a third debtor, around July 1, 200, around July 1, 200.

(k) On September 10, 200, Defendant Republic of Korea seized the instant deposit claim of this case on the ground that GG had unpaid value-added tax of KRW 00 billion. The said seizure reached BB on September 14, 200, respectively.

(l) The JJ succeeded to (J was declared bankrupt by the J on November 24, 200, ○○○○○ District Court 20 XX Gohap○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, on the basis of the instant pledge, filed a claim attachment and assignment order as to the instant deposit claim under the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ on July 12, 200. The instant assignment order reached BB as the garnishee around July 20, 200.

Accordingly, on November 23, 200, 200, GG succeeded to GG (GG was declared bankrupt by ○○○○○○ District Court 20xxn ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, hereinafter referred to as “Defendant trustee FF”) of the Defendant Bankrupt’s bankruptcy trustee of the Defendant Bankrupt was unable to claim the instant pledge against the Plaintiff due to the second commitment, and the JJ appealed appealed against the instant assignment order as ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, but the appellate court dismissed the appeal on February 22, 200, by deeming that the instant deposit claim of the instant account was not a security that the JJ decided not to claim against the Plaintiff by the second commitment. Accordingly, the Defendant Trustee and the FF re-appealed to the Supreme Court 20 XX○○○○○, but the Defendant Trustee re-appealed to the Supreme Court 200.

The reappeal was dismissed on April 12, 200.

(m) As such, upon the dispute over the deposit claim of the instant account, BB deposited the principal and interest of the value-added tax refund deposit (hereinafter “the instant deposit money”) deposited with the Plaintiff and the Defendants on November 11, 200 XX, with the applicable law as the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 7, Eul evidence 1 to 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff

On October 1, 200, the day on which the Plaintiff decided to perform the obligation to guarantee under the guarantee agreement of this case pursuant to Article 4(1)4 and 5 of the letter of transfer of this case’s transfer, the Plaintiff lawfully transferred the claim for the refund of value-added tax (hereinafter “the deposit claim of this case”) from GGG around October 1, 200. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is entitled to the claim for the refund of the deposit of this case’s deposit money to which BB deposited the deposit claim of this case.

B. Defendant administrator DDD

Since the State’s duty to refund value-added tax is an obligation under public law specifically recognized from the perspective of tax policy, the instant deposit claim cannot be deemed a claim related to the instant business. Moreover, each of the terms and conditions of the instant transfer notes or the 1 and 2 commitments asserted by the Plaintiff is ambiguous and unclear, and thus, is null and void as it constitutes a clause that violates the principle of good faith, or the principle of disadvantage of the drafter, or an unreasonably unfavorable provision to the customer. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s right to receive from GG through the instant transfer notes, the 1 and 2 commitments is not included in the instant deposit claim. Rather, the instant deposit claim is not included in the Plaintiff’s right to receive from GG based on the instant transfer notes, the instant transfer notes, the instant assignment order was issued, and the said assignment order became final and conclusive, and Defendant Trustee DD acquired the instant deposit claim.

C. Defendant Republic of Korea

Each provision of the instant transfer note or the 1 and 2 commitments asserted by the Plaintiff is only prepared in the sense of confirming that the Plaintiff has priority over other creditors of the GG regarding the right to GG and the exercise of security rights. Therefore, it cannot be said that the instant transfer note and the 1 and 2 commitments were concluded between the Plaintiff and the GGG through the instant transfer note and the 1 and 2 commitments, or that the BB consented to the transfer of the instant deposit claim.

If the instant deposit claim is included in the Plaintiff’s right to be transferred or the right to be acquired in the first and second commitments, it would be excessively infringing upon the other creditors’ rights of GG. In this case, each provision of the instant transfer note or the first and second commitments asserted by the Plaintiff constitutes an unfair legal act under Article 104 of the Civil Act or is null and void as it violates the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions.

3. Determination

A. Whether the instant deposit claim is included in the rights stipulated in Article 4(1)4 and 5 of the Second Declaration as to the transfer angle of this case

In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the factual basis as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the rights stipulated in Article 1(c), (d), and (1) and (2) of the Assignment Manual include the deposit claim of this case.

① The value-added tax refund deposited in the account of this case is the value-added tax received by GGG after receiving the down payment or intermediate payment from the buyer of the apartment of this case, and the said sales contract was revoked or cancelled, and thus, it is the money returned again. Therefore, even if GG acquired the value-added tax refund, it shall be returned to the buyer. Ultimately, the substance of the value-added tax refund does not coincide with the sale price to be returned to the buyer of the apartment of this case.

② The occurrence and refund of value-added tax on the apartment of this case are the legal relations incidental to the instant project implementation process. Accordingly, the rights of GG on the relevant refund may be deemed as the rights related to the instant project.

③ The lender of GG and GG may be deemed to have expressed an intention to preferentially acquire all rights of GG to the Plaintiff within the scope of the Plaintiff’s claim for indemnity against the Plaintiff for the smooth implementation of the instant project.

④ The Plaintiff returned down payment and intermediate payment to the buyer, thereby resulting in the refund of value-added tax. Moreover, by performing the guaranteed obligation under the instant guarantee agreement, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have returned value-added tax on behalf of the buyer of the instant apartment in lieu of the refund of value-added tax on behalf of the buyer of the instant apartment. In light of such circumstances, the refund of value-added tax refunded in the future of GG is reasonable from the perspective of fairness.

⑤ In order for the Plaintiff to acquire the rights of GG in accordance with the instant transfer note or the instant promise letter, the Plaintiff is liable for the guarantee pursuant to the instant guarantee agreement. As such, the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the rights of GG through the instant transfer note or the instant promise letter is presumed to be premised on the situation where the instant project could not be implemented normally. However, the instant deposit claim, such as the cancellation of the instant apartment sale contract, is due to the situation where the instant project was not implemented normally.

B. Whether the Plaintiff acquired the instant deposit claim

1) The need to conclude a separate transfer contract

According to the letter of transfer of this case, it is reasonable to view that GG entered into a transfer contract between the Plaintiff and GGG on the condition that the Plaintiff bears the guaranteed obligation under the guarantee agreement of this case under the condition of suspension. Therefore, in order to transfer the rights stipulated in the letter of transfer of this case, a separate transfer contract between the Plaintiff and GG is not necessary.

2) Description of claims subject to transfer

If it is possible to recognize the identity of claims with respect to the assignment of claims by distinguishing them from other claims in terms of social norms, such claims shall be deemed specified. Even if the amount of claims for the transfer of claims is not determined at the time of the transfer of claims, if standards are established to determine the period during which the obligations are due, such transfer of claims shall be deemed valid (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da21624, Jul. 25, 1997).

In specifying the right to object of transfer in the transfer angle of this case, the comprehensive expression of "the right of the body" is as seen earlier (Article 1 (d)), but the right to object of transfer is specified in the same paragraph as "related to the business of this case." In addition, in the case of the refund of value-added tax, since the amount of value-added tax is determined in accordance with the laws and regulations related to value-added tax, the amount of value-added tax already paid by GGGs can be predicted to some extent to which extent the amount of the refund of value-added tax can be incurred due to the cancellation and cancellation of the apartment sale contract of this case, and thus, there is no standard to determine the amount of the refund of value-added tax. Ultimately, even though the right to claim the refund of value-added

(iii) the transfer of claims by BB.

As seen earlier, the acceptance of the assignment of claims can be accepted in advance, and in the event that the Plaintiff prepared the first undertaking and agreed to perform the obligation to guarantee under the instant guarantee agreement, BB agreed to all the rights to the instant project owned by GG (Article 4(1)5). As such, BB may be deemed to have obtained prior approval of the instant assignment of claims by GG prior to the date of preparation of the first undertaking. Moreover, as seen earlier, BB obtained the fixed date around December 13, 2000 with respect to the said undertaking.

4) Sub-committee

Ultimately, the instant deposit claim is deemed to have been legitimately transferred to the Plaintiff on October 1, 200, when the Plaintiff was liable for the guarantee due to the occurrence of the guarantee accident stipulated in the instant guarantee agreement, or around April 9, 200, when the Plaintiff performed the obligation for the guarantee. Meanwhile, since the attachment of Defendant Republic of Korea and the instant assignment order, etc. issued after the said assignment of claims, etc., were made after the said assignment of claims, it cannot be set up against the said assignment of claims (the instant assignment order becomes final and conclusive even if the assignment order became final and conclusive, as seen earlier, res judicata does not take effect prior to the instant assignment of claims, on the ground that the instant assignment order became final and conclusive through re-appeal. Moreover, as seen earlier, Defendant DD cannot assert that the instant assignment of claims was established first against the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 2(1) of the Second Assignment Declaration, since JJ made and made the second promise to the Plaintiff.

C. Whether the Plaintiff’s acquisition of bonds constitutes a violation of the Act on the Regulation of Terms and Conditions or an unfair juristic act

According to the above facts, there is room to regard the part of the Plaintiff’s acquisition of the instant deposit claim pursuant to each of the instant transfer notes and the 1 and 2 commitments as terms and conditions. However, in the instant guarantee agreement, the amount of the purchase deposit borne by the Plaintiff is considerably large, and the Plaintiff’s payment of large-scale deposit money and the necessity exists to preferentially secure all the rights held by the executor in order to recover it. Furthermore, the business failure of the instant case depends on the completion of the instant apartment, and the Plaintiff’s issuance of the Plaintiff’s house sale guarantee certificate is considerably helpful for the activation of the instant apartment, so the possibility that the Plaintiff consented to the Plaintiff’s preferential acquisition of the rights held by GGGG, the executor of the instant business instead of issuing the house sale guarantee certificate. In full view of these circumstances, each of the instant transfer notes and the 1 and 2 commitments commitments cannot be deemed to constitute an unfair legal act as stipulated in Article 104 of the Civil Act or an unfair legal act.

D. Sub-committee

Since the Plaintiff received the instant deposit claim, the Plaintiff has the right to claim for payment of deposit money on the instant deposit money deposited by BB, and as long as the Republic of Korea is disputing the instant deposit claim, there is a benefit to confirm it to the Plaintiff.

4. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified. However, the plaintiff and defendant administrator DD, and the part between the Republic of Korea is lost, and the part between the plaintiff and defendant administrator FF is borne by each party by applying Article 99 of the Civil Procedure Act.