Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

The creditors who have transferred the claim for the return of the lease deposit may not oppose the claim with the provisional attachment or seizure after the notification of the transfer to the lessor by a certificate with a fixed date and the notification thereof has been received.

Article 42 of the National Tax Collection Act: Effect of attachment of claims

1. On February 21, 2008, Nonparty 324,362,483, which was deposited by the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 707 on February 21, 2008, Nonparty 1’s right to demand a payment of KRW 170,000,000, out of KRW 324,362,483.

2. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○ Electric Co., Ltd. is borne by Defendant ○○ Electric Co., Ltd., and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants are

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following facts: the Plaintiff, Defendant ○○ Electronic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant ○○ Electronic”), ○○ Bank (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Bank”), ○○ Industrial Bank, Korea, ○○ Industrial Bank, ○○, Kim Yong- New Co., Ltd., ○○○○, ○○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○○, ○○○○, and ○○ Co., Ltd., as a whole: (a) the dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○○○ Electric Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant ○○ Electronic”), or evidence Nos. 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, 1, 2, and 2,

A. On October 13, 2003, the Plaintiff entered into a credit guarantee agreement with Defendant ○○ Electric Co., Ltd. with the content of "the principal amount of KRW 170,000,000 among the loans of KRW 200,000,000 against Defendant ○○ Electric Co., Ltd., and interest thereon, and delayed damages, the Plaintiff guaranteed the Plaintiff (the guarantee period has been extended from October 13, 2003 to October 12, 2007). In order to secure a claim for reimbursement of KRW 35,00,000 for the performance of the guaranteed obligation, the Plaintiff acquired the principal amount of KRW 170,00,000 among the loans of KRW 20,00 and KRW 200,000, KRW 200, KRW 2000, KRW 200, KRW 2000, KRW 2000, KRW 2000, KRW 260,00.

B. On November 3, 2003, Defendant ○ Electronic notified the lessor of the assignment of the above assignment by content-certified mail, and the above notification arrived at the lessor on November 5, 2003.

C. On October 14, 2003, Defendant ○ Electronic extended KRW 200,00,000 from Defendant ○○ Bank under the above credit guarantee agreement, but did not pay the principal and interest of the loan from 2007,1,24, and the Plaintiff subrogated Defendant ○○ Bank for KRW 178,209,555 (= principal + KRW 170,000,000 + interest + KRW 8,209,555) in accordance with the above credit guarantee agreement on June 4, 2007.

D. Meanwhile, on August 5, 2005, Defendant ○ Electric transferred KRW 195,00,000 among the instant security deposit claims to Defendant ○○○○○, and notified the lessor of the assignment of claims and notified the lessor of the assignment of claims to the above notification on August 7, 2005. In addition, Defendant ○○○○○ Industrial Bank, Korea, National Pension Service, National Health Insurance Corporation, ○○○ Industrial Community Corporation, ○○○ Industrial Community Corporation, ○○○○○○ New Company, Kim Yong-si, ○○○○○, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○, Labor Welfare Corporation, ○○○ Company, and the Plaintiff provisionally seized or seized the instant security deposit claims as indicated in the attached list.

E. On February 21, 2008, the lessor, among the Plaintiff and Defendant ○ Electronic, and ○○ Bank, could not know who is the genuine right holder of the instant claim. Moreover, on the ground that provisional attachment and seizure was conducted as shown in the attached list, the lessor deposited the deposited person by mixing the deposited amount of KRW 324,362,483 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) after deducting the sum totaling KRW 35,637,517 of the instant deposit amount from the sum totaling 35,637,517 of the instant deposit amount, and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

2. Determination

As long as the Plaintiff acquired 170,000,000 won out of the claim of this case from Defendant ○ Electronic and then notified the transfer of claim by the certificate with a fixed date and the notification was reached to the lessor on November 5, 2003, the creditors of Defendant ○○ Electronic, who subsequently acquired part of the claim of this case, by provisional attachment or attachment of the claim of this case, cannot oppose the Plaintiff with this claim, as shown in the separate list.

Therefore, the claim for payment of KRW 170,000 out of the instant deposit is against the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek confirmation against the Defendants that the claim for payment is against the Plaintiff for the payment of the said money. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.