209Gaz. 17274 Receiving money

1. DODO;

Suwon-gu Suwon-gu

The representative director Park Jae-il

2. TOD;

Suwon-si, Suwon-si

Representative Director Lee 00

3. OOO stock company;

Geumcheon-gu Seoul

Representative Director ○ Kim

4. DOOE; and

Seoul Dongdaemun-gu

MaximumO

5. AOO stock company;

Suwon-si Suwon-si

【Representative Director】

6. IMO (OOE) Inc.;

Seoul Dongdaemun-gu

Proposal of representative director

7. DOD Co., Ltd.

Gangnam-gu Seoul

Representative Director ○○

[Plaintiff-Appellant] Law School

Seoul High Court Decision 200Na1448 delivered on May 21, 200

Doctrine School Foundation

Suwon-si, Suwon-si

Representative Maapia

Attorney Ha-O, Counsel for the plaintiff

July 16, 2010

July 16, 2010

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

The defendant shall pay 380,00,000 won to the plaintiff COI, 240,00,000,000,000 won to the plaintiff OO Co., Ltd., and 300,000,000,000 won to the plaintiff ○○ Incorporated Co., Ltd., and 250,000,000,000 won to the plaintiff ○○ Incorporated Co., Ltd., and 120,000,000,000, and 65,000,000,00 won to the plaintiff ○○ Incorporated, and 380,00,000,000,00 won to the plaintiff ○○ Incorporated Co., Ltd., Ltd., and 20,000 per annum from the day following the judgment of each of this case until the day of complete payment, and 380,00 per annum from each of the following day to the day of each of this case.

1. Basic facts

(a) A party relationship;

1) The Plaintiffs are corporations whose main purpose is the Do and retail business of drugs, and the Defendant is a corporation that has the University Medical Center (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Medical Center”) as affiliated facilities.

2) The Plaintiffs supplied drugs, etc. to △△△, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as △△△), and △△, on December 1, 2008, supplied drugs, etc. to Defendant Medical Center until December 1, 2008, and the bankruptcy on December 2, 2008 occurred.

B. Assignment contract between the plaintiffs and △△

In order to pay the price of the goods to the plaintiffs or to secure the payment or security of the price of the goods, △△△△△△△△△△△△△△△△ was transferred to the plaintiffs, and notified the transfer of the goods to the defendant (hereinafter in this case referred to as the "right transfer contract"), and at the defendant Medical Center by content-certified mail, each of the above notifications has been delivered around that time.

A person shall be appointed.

- 3-

A person shall be appointed.

(c) A decision on provisional seizure of claims;

1) Meanwhile, on December 5, 2008, Mawon District Court 2008Kadan0000, OOOO's medical center for the defendant, 463, 371, 756 won in the claim pressure. The above decision was served on the defendant Medical Center around 00 on December 15, 2008.

2) In addition, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund received a decision on April 6, 2009 on the disposal and provisional injunction for collection of the transferred claim as stated in the above paragraph (b) on April 10, 2009 from Suwon District Court Decision 2009Kadan0000, that the assignment of claim in this case between the plaintiffs and OOO as the debtor on the ground that the assignment of claim in this case was a fraudulent act, 'the third debtor', 'the defendant', and 'the right to be preserved', 'the right to claim restitution which was caused by the revocation of the fraudulent act. The above decision was served on the Defendant Medical Center on April 10, 2009.

D. The defendant's deposit

When multiple transfers of claims, provisional disposition, or provisional seizure of claims competes with each other, the Defendant deposited KRW 1,280,025,656 on June 2, 2009, the sum of KRW 1,283,925, 656, excluding KRW 3,90,000, KRW 6550, KRW 10,000, KRW 200,000, KRW 200,000, KRW 30,000,000, and KRW 40,000,000, KRW 40,000,000, KRW 10,000, KRW 5,000, KRW 5,0000, KRW 20,000, KRW 30,000, KRW 16,000,000, KRW 10,000,000, KRW 16,000,00.

[Ground of Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 12, Eul evidence No. 45 to 47, Eul evidence No. 50 (including each number)

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination as to the assertion on the cause of claim

1) The assertion

The plaintiffs asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay each amount of money as stated in the claims and damages for delay to the plaintiffs in accordance with the assignment contract of this case.

2) Determination

The sum of credit accounts owed by the Defendant to IOC as of December 1, 2008 is KRW 6,778, 925, 656 ( = 7,528, 428, 428, 474 won + 8,102, 172, 023 won from June 30 to June 1, 2008; and 656 won (=the sum of the credit accounts owed by the Defendant to OO during the period from May 31, 2008 to December 1, 2008).

Meanwhile, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 44, Eul evidence Nos. 48 and 49 (including each number) and the whole purport of the pleadings, OO on May 3, 2004, including the transfer of KRW 100,00,000 among the claims against the defendant to OO corporation, to KRW 5,495,000 until August 29, 2008, and the total amount of KRW 5,495,00,000 to the defendant to a third party, and notified the defendant by content-proof mail with a fixed date of 5,00 each time, and it can be recognized that the defendant reached the defendant around that time (including 6,00,000 won, KRW 50,000, KRW 86,000, KRW 50,0000, KRW 686,000, etc., KRW 28,008,00.

Therefore, the defendant is in accordance with the order of arrival of the notice of the assignment of claims with a fixed date without any special circumstance; 380,00,000 won for the plaintiff's ODR that delivered the notice of the assignment of claims on December 8, 2008; 240,000,000 won for the plaintiff's shares company; 300,000,000 won for the plaintiff's OOO company; 250,000,000 won for the plaintiff's OOO company; 300,000 won for the plaintiff's OOO company; and 300,00 won for the defendant's total amount for the defendant's obligations to be discharged to 0,000 won for the reason that the notice of the assignment of claims on December 9, 208 reaches 113, 925, 006, 3000 won for the plaintiff's shares company;

B. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

1) The assertion

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that the obligation to pay the remaining goods to the defendant's OO is extinguished by each deposit of KRW 1,280,025, 656 and 4, 119,041 as a result of repayment deposit or provisional seizure of claims by the creditor's non-creditory.

2) Determination

In a case where there is a question as to whether or not the notification of the assignment of claims has been made with respect to a specific claim but there has been a reason to deposit for repayment based on the confirmation of creditor's uncertainty under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, and where the decision of provisional seizure of claims or the pressure of claims has been made after the notification of the assignment of claims, and the reason for the execution deposit under Articles 248 (1) and 291 of the Civil Execution Act has occurred, the obligor may make a deposit for repayment and its execution on the basis of the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act. Such mixed deposit has the effect of a deposit for repayment with respect to the authorized transferee, and with respect to the execution deposit, the execution creditor, etc. related to the execution deposit has the effect of the execution deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da2583 delivered on April 26, 196, etc.).

On December 8, 2008, and December 9, 2008, there were concerns as to whether or not the claim has been lawfully transferred due to the decision of prohibition of provisional disposition based on the revocation of fraudulent act against each of the above assigned claims, although there was a price for each assignment to the defendant, but the provisional seizure order on the part of the claim was issued on December 9, 2008, and the defendant's deposit is valid as a mixed deposit made at the time of the probability of right and the provisional seizure of the claim.

Therefore, since the defendant's above-mentioned obligation against the plaintiffs is deemed to have been fully repaid due to the above valid public trust, the defendant's argument is with merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claims of this case are all dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

judge Kim Tae-be——

Judges Kim Jong-soo

Judges Yu Sung-sung.