If the bonds are transferred double, the preferential relationship between the assignee should be followed by the prior relation of the recognition of the obligation.

If the bonds are transferred double, the preferential relationship between the assignee should be followed by the prior relation of the recognition of the obligation.

2014Na7824 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

AA Construction Corporation

Republic of Korea Overseas2

Suwon District Court Decision 2013Da73229 Decided January 22, 2014

November 6, 2014

November 27, 2014

1. All appeals filed by the Defendants are dismissed. 2. Costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

1. Purport of claim

on June 12, 2013, the Plaintiff or Co-Defendant B Construction Co-Defendant B Construction Co-Defendant B Construction Co-Defendant B Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “B Construction”)

(3) 79,769,000 deposited by the Suwon District Court No. 6194 of the year 2013 as a deposit;

It is confirmed that the plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of the deposit.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the Defendants in the judgment of the first instance is revoked. The Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants is dismissed.

section 3.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 25, 2013, BB construction subcontracted the instant construction project to the Plaintiff by setting the construction cost of KRW 85,000,000 and the construction period from March 26, 2013 to May 24, 201 of the same year as the period from March 25, 2013, BB construction subcontracted the instant construction cost claim against BB construction to the Plaintiff, and notified the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims at the time of industrialization, and the Plaintiff was notified of the assignment of claims on March 26, 201.

B. The creditors of BB construction, including Defendant RCC and DaD, received a seizure and collection order against the claim for construction payment against BB construction when it became commercialized as shown in the following table. On June 12, 2013, Suwon District Court deposited KRW 79,769,000 as depositee for the Plaintiff and BB construction as the depositee on June 12, 2013 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

D. On July 3, 2013, Defendant Republic of Korea seized an amount equal to KRW 45,282,450 of the value-added tax amount among the claims for payment of deposit funds held by BB Construction against the Republic of Korea (deposited Public Officials of the Suwon District Court) in relation to the foregoing deposit case, and notified attachment to the Republic of Korea (Deposit Officials of the Suwon District Court) on the 5th of the same month.

E. On the other hand, on August 21, 2013, EE industry submitted to the executing court an application for the cancellation of the attachment of claims and the issuance of a collection order, and was notified of the cancellation of the attachment of claims on the 28th of the same month.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, Gap evidence No. 4-1 and 2, fact-finding results to the Suwon District Court of the first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the parties’ assertion

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

Where a claim has been transferred in duplicate, the order between the transferee shall be determined by the debtor’s perception on the assignment of claim, i.e., the date when the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the debtor, or after the date of consent with the fixed date with the date of acceptance. This legal doctrine equally applies to cases where the obligor determines the heat between the transferee and the same claim, such as a collection order, with respect to the same claim, and thus, the order between the Plaintiff and the Defendants shall be determined by the notice of the transfer of claim with the fixed date, and after the arrival of the seizure and collection order (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 93Da242

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff's notice of assignment of claims with the fixed date reaches the time when it became more commercialized than the seizure and collection order of defendant YCC and YD, the plaintiff's right to claim payment of the deposit of this case belongs to the plaintiff, the transferee of the claim.

Furthermore, as in the instant case, in a case where the transferor of claims and the transferee are designated as the deposited person and the execution deposit is mixed for the concurrent reasons of seizure, a written consent attached to the certificate of the seal impression of the transferor, execution creditor, etc. or a final and conclusive judgment is required to confirm the right to claim the payment of the deposited money against the transferor, creditor, etc. for the purpose of paying the deposited money. Since the Defendants are disputing the Plaintiff’s right to claim the payment of the deposited money, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation of the right to claim

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) Defendant DD, Korea, alleged that the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and BB Construction constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the same only with the entries of subparagraphs 1 through 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence above, BB construction merely appears to have reached an agreement on the direct payment of the construction price by immediately transferring the claim for the construction price to the Plaintiff for the instant construction that was contracted from the time of compatibility and transferring it to the Plaintiff, and thus, this part of the above Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

2) In addition, Defendant RCC and RD asserted that the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and BB Construction constitutes a fraudulent act detrimental to other general creditors, and thus, they can only claim the revocation of the fraudulent act by means of lawsuit, and can not claim the revocation of the fraudulent act by means of simple attack and defense in this case (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da4859, 48605, Mar. 13, 1998). The above Defendants’ assertion in this part is pending in the lawsuit for revocation of the fraudulent act filed by the Defendant against the Plaintiff on Sept. 25, 2013 by Suwon District Court 2013Da88924, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the assignment of claims to the Plaintiff by BB Construction against the Plaintiff by means of fraudulent act was revoked by means of the fraudulent act (In addition, the Defendants can prevent the Plaintiff from receiving the instant deposit through a preservative measure).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted in its entirety on the grounds of its reasoning, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in its conclusion, and all appeals by the defendants are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.