The right to claim the payment of deposit shall accrue to the creditor with a fixed date prior to

Where a garnishee makes a mixed deposit with the grounds for the deposit for repayment and the grounds for the deposit for execution, together with the grounds for the deposit for execution, the right to claim the deposit for payment of the deposit belongs to the creditor who has given the notice

Article 15 of the Civil Execution Act

2013 Ghana 219868 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit Money

AAA Corporation

1. BB 2. CCC

3. Diplomatic Co., Ltd. 4. EE; 5. FFF Co., Ltd.

6. KimG 7. Kim H 8. GH 8. Park II 9. JJJJ

11. LL 12. MaM

13. NN Industry Co., Ltd. 14. Korea

November 13, 2013

November 27, 2013

1. On August 28, 2012, PP Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. confirms that the right to claim the payment of deposit money for the OO won deposited by Suwon District Court Sejong District Court No. 2012 Gold 1246 was the Plaintiff.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant BB (hereinafter “Defendant BB”) entered into a goods supply contract with the PP Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “PP Heavy Industries”) on January 7, 201 and June 30, 201, and Defendant BB entered into a goods supply contract with the PP Heavy Industries (hereinafter “P Heavy Industries”). Defendant BB’s goods payment claim against the PP Heavy Industries (hereinafter “the instant claim”) is an OOO.

나. 이 사건 채권에 관하여 고QQ, 원고, 피고 주식회사 CCC(이하 피고 CCC라 한다), 피고 주식회사 DD우레탄(이하 피고 DD우레탄이라 한다), 피고 채EE, 피고 FFF 주식회사(이하 피고 FFF라 한다), 피고 김GG, 김HH, 박II, 피고 주식회사 JJJ(이하 피고 JJJ이라 한다), 피고 오KK, 피고 주식회사 LLL(이하 피고 LLL이라 한다), 피고 윤MM, 피고 NNN산업주식회사(이하 피고 NNN산업이라 한다), 피고 대한민국은 아래 표 기재와 같이 채권가압류명령, 채권압류 및 추심명령, 채권압류 및 전부명령, 채권양도 등을 받았다.

See Table 4 see Court Decision 4

C. PP Heavy Industries: (a) on August 26, 2012, combined deposit of KRW OO in accordance with Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 487 of the Civil Act, on the grounds that the provisional attachment, assignment order, collection order, assignment of claims, etc. were concurrent with respect to the instant claims (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

D. On June 21, 2013, Defendant FF and Defendant CCC filed an application for withdrawal and cancellation of enforcement with respect to the provisional seizure against each of the above claims.

마. 고QQ은 원고 및 피고들을 상대로 이 법원 2012가단84690호 공탁금출급확인청구의 소를 제기하여 2013. 5. 8. 위 법원은 '이 사건 공탁금 중 OOOO원에 대한 공탁금출급청구권이 고QQ에게 있음을 확인한다'는 내용의 승소판결을 선고하였고, 위 판결은 그 무렵 확정되었다.

[Reasons for Recognition]

○ Defendant Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 through 7 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

○ The remaining Defendants: Confession (Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act)

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In cases where the amount of a pecuniary claim executed provisionally after provisional seizure of a claim is executed by a third-party debtor, the creditor’s right to claim payment of the deposit is limited to the debtor’s right to claim payment of the deposit amount equivalent to the amount of the claim (Article 297 of the Civil Execution Act), and in cases where a mixed deposit is made on the grounds that the debtor’s obligor (in cases of a claim transfer) or a third-party debtor (in cases of a mixed deposit is based on the grounds for repayment deposit and the grounds for execution deposit, the right to claim payment of the deposit shall be attributed to the creditor with the highest fixed date, as well as the grounds for execution deposit, in which the notification of transfer with the fixed date for the assignment of claims reaches the debtor’s delivery date or the consent with the fixed date with the fixed date of acceptance (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da24223, Apr. 26, 199).

위 법리를 이 사건에 비추어보면, 이 사건 공탁금 OOOO원 중 우선순위가 가장 앞선 피고 채EE의 가압류 피보전채권 OOOO원을 공제하면 OOOO원(OOOO원 - OOOO원)이 남게 되고, 이에 대하여 다음 순위인 고QQ의 확정일자부 양수채권액인 OOOO원을 공제하면 OOOO원(OOOO원 - OOOO원)이 남게 된다.

However, as seen earlier, Defendant FF and Defendant CCC applied for the withdrawal and cancellation of the above provisional seizure against each of the above claims on June 21, 2013, which are the next priority order, and thus, the next priority order is that the right to claim the payment of deposit money against the above OOO personnel belongs to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

(1) Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that, if Defendant FF and CCC applied for the withdrawal and cancellation of the above order of seizure and collection, the validity of the invalid assignment of claims is not considered, and thus, the assignment of claims in the form of limited rights by provisional seizure is null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da59033, Apr. 26, 2002). Since Defendant FF and CCC already issued a seizure and collection order of Defendant FF and CCC prior to the Plaintiff, even if Defendant FF and CCC applied for the withdrawal and cancellation of the above order of seizure and collection, the invalid assignment of claims becomes null and void.

(2) The Supreme Court Decision 2001Da59033 Decided April 26, 2002, which the defendant Republic of Korea asserted as its ground, stated that "in the event that the claims provisionally seized are transferred, the assignee of the claims shall be subject to the transfer of the claims under the condition limited by the provisional seizure, and the assignee of the claims shall not be deemed otherwise deemed to have received a judgment ordering the debtor to pay the above transfer amount. It shall not be viewed that the assignee of the claims received a seizure and collection order which takes the provisional seizure back to the provisional seizure, and in the event that the deposit of execution is distributed to the creditor of the provisional seizure as a result of the overlapping of the provisional seizure of claims, etc., the assignment of claims to the transferee of the claims shall become null and void." However, the above judgment means that if the claims provisionally seized are transferred under the premise that the prohibition on the disposal of the provisional seizure of claims becomes a relative effect, the above assignment of claims becomes final and void between the creditor of the provisional seizure and the transferee of the claims after the seizure and the collection order are invalidated.

Therefore, as examined in the above facts, as to the instant case, the Plaintiff had already issued a collection order and seizure of Defendant CCC, FF’s claim prior to the instant claim before receiving the assignment of the claim, and as long as Defendant CCC and FF applied for the cancellation of the execution, the right to perform the collection performance lawsuit belongs to the junior creditor. Since the assignment of claim cannot be deemed null and void even in relation to the Defendant Republic of Korea who seized the claim thereafter, the above assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea on the premise that the assignment of claim in this case is null and void is without merit.

C. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the deposit in this case constitutes a mixed deposit, and from the perspective of its enforcement deposit, the deposit is deposited by the depositor to obtain the recognition of the claim against the beneficiary as well as the execution creditor. In light of its purport, in order for the beneficiary to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods, it is insufficient that the deposited person has a document proving that he/she has the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods only in relation to the other deposited person, and in relation to the execution creditor, the document proving that the claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods has been filed should be prepared and submitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012).

Therefore, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation in the relationship with the Defendants, as well as other Defendants, who are enforcement creditors (this is also the same in relation to the relationship with the Defendants, who are in the state of confession as they did not submit a written answer and are not present on the date for pleading

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim for payment of OOO won among the deposit money of this case shall be deemed to have been reverted to the plaintiff, and there is a benefit of confirmation. Therefore, each claim against the defendants of this case against the plaintiff is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.