Even if the assignment of claims constitutes a fraudulent act, it shall not be asserted as a defense in addition to seeking revocation thereof by means of a lawsuit.

Even if the assignment of each claim between the plaintiff and the defendant constitutes a fraudulent act, it cannot be asserted as a defense except seeking revocation by lawsuit.

Article 24 of the National Tax Collection Act

Busan District Court Decision 2012Gadan204176 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

AAAAAA

BBSeoul Total Sales Co., Ltd. and eight others

July 27, 2012

August 31, 2012

1. On December 31, 2010, the Plaintiff and the Defendants confirmed that the instant claim for payment of deposit money was filed between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, which was deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 26953, 201, and KRW 000,000 deposited by the gold No. 9402, May 3, 2011.

2. On December 30, 2010, between the Plaintiff, Defendant BB Seoul Total & D Design Co., Ltd, DD Design Co., Ltd, NaE, and Korea, FF Construction Co., Ltd. confirmed that the right to claim payment of the deposit amount of KRW 000 deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 26820 on December 30, 2010 is the Plaintiff.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The relationship between the parties

TheCC Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "CC industry") and the FF Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "FFF Construction") are construction companies that perform new apartment construction in Ulsan, Daejeon, Jinju, Seoul, etc., and Defendant DD Design Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "Defendant DD Design") are companies that perform new apartment construction works under a subcontract for the parts of interior and covering construction of each apartment from the above companies. The Plaintiff is a company that manufactures PVC sunset, etc. and supplies goods to Defendant DD Design, while the Defendants are in the position of creditors against Defendant DD Design by supplying goods to Defendant DD Design or sub-subcontracting construction works.

B. Deposit of the construction price claim against the Defendant DD Design Industry

Defendant DD Design had been subcontracted to the Seoul High Court 200, 200, 200, 300, 2000, 2000, 2000, 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,00,00.

C. Deposit of the construction cost claim against the FF construction of Defendant DD Design

Defendant DD Design had been subcontracted out of FF Construction to the part of the internal design and the installation of new OB infrastructure in Guro-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government OO-dong OO construction. Defendant DD Design entered into a contract with the Plaintiff on October 29, 2010 to transfer 00 won out of the construction cost claim for FF Construction, and notified the Plaintiff of the fact that the said assignment of claim was transferred to FF Construction with a certificate with a fixed date on November 1, 2010, and the above notification reached FF Construction on November 2, 2010. However, Defendant DD Design again transferred part of the construction cost claim for FFF construction to 20 Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the provisional attachment deposit was made to 20,000,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000 won to 20,000,000 won to 201.2, 2,014.

[Grounds for Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1 through Gap evidence 4 (including each number in case of natural disaster)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

According to the above facts, the plaintiff legally transferred each of the construction price claims of this case before the defendant was transferred, seized, or provisionally attached, shall have the right to claim the payment of deposit money for each of the construction price claims deposited by the defendant DD Design as above, and the defendant shall have the right to claim the confirmation as long as the defendant contests it.

3. Determination on the assertion of Defendant LL, MM bank, and Korea

(a) Claims that the assignment of claims is ineffective against a special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims;

Although the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the above special agreement at the time of the transfer of claims, it appears that the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the above special agreement or that it did not know the existence of the non-assignment agreement to the assignee even if it did not know the existence of the non-assignment agreement, and that the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the non-assignment agreement at the time of the transfer of claims, and that there was gross negligence on the part of the assignee, and that the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the non-assignment agreement at the time of the transfer of claims, and that there was no gross negligence on the part of the assignee, and that the Plaintiff did not know the existence of the non-assignment special agreement at the time of the transfer of claims, and that there was no gross negligence on the part of the assignee who did not know the existence of the non-assignment special agreement at the time of the transfer of claims. However, the Plaintiff asserted that there was no gross negligence on the part of the assignee who did not know the existence of the non-assignment special agreement at the time of the transfer of claims.

B. Judgment on the assertion that the assignment of claims has been revoked

Defendant MM Bank, Inc., notified the Plaintiff of the cancellation of the assignment of claims to the GG industry on November 10, 2010, arguing that the assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and Defendant DD Design is invalid. However, unless there is any evidence to support that Defendant DD Design notified the cancellation of the assignment of claims with the Plaintiff’s consent as the assignee of claims, the above Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

C. Determination as to the assertion that the assignment of claims is a fraudulent act

Defendant LLL, MM bank, and Republic of Korea asserted that the transfer of each of the instant construction payment claims to the Plaintiff in excess of the obligation constitutes a fraudulent act as the damage to the general creditors of Defendant DD Design. However, as alleged by the above Defendants, even if the respective assignment of claims between the Plaintiff and Defendant DD Design constitutes a fraudulent act, it cannot be asserted as a defense in addition to the claim for revocation, and the above assertion by Defendant DD Design is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.