(a) Whether it is against the rule of experience to receive the assignment of claims by the debtor to a third party obligor as payment in lieu of claims, including future claims that may arise to the creditor;

(b) Validity of a report on bonds issued to another head of the competent tax office in violation of an emergency order on economic stability and growth, in violation of Article 15;

A. The creditor's transfer of a claim to a third party debtor is equivalent to the empirical rule that he/she receives the debtor's transfer of a claim in lieu of the creditor's performance of the claim including not only the existing claim but also the future claim. Therefore, it cannot be deemed that the above transfer of a claim becomes the purpose of accord and satisfaction without proof of such special circumstance.

(b) Even if the district tax office having jurisdiction over the place of tax payment of corporate tax at the time of occurrence of corporate bonds differs from each other in violation of Article 15 of the Emergency Order on Economic Stabilization and Growth, the report shall be valid if it has been filed with the director of the district tax office

Article 187 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 15(1) of the Emergency Order Concerning Economic Stabilization and Growth

Supreme Court Decision 4292No. 61 Decided February 25, 1960

Plaintiff

Suwon Farmland Improvement Association (Attorneys Lee Na-ho et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Gwangju High Court Decision 76Na225 delivered on May 26, 197

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

The Plaintiff’s grounds of appeal (1,2, and3) and the Plaintiff’s attorney’s grounds of appeal (1,2) are examined together.

According to the reasoning of the judgment, the court below held that the non-party company's transfer of non-party 1 bonds to the plaintiff at the time of the above 1969 company's company's 20,000 company funds for the above 10 company company's 20 company company's 20 company funds for the above 10 company company's 1 company company's 6 company funds for the above 1 company company's 6 company funds for the above 1 company company's 6 company funds for the above 1 company company's 1 company funds for the above 1 company company's 6 company funds for the above 1 company's 6 company funds for the above 1 company company's 9 company funds for the above 1 company company's 6 company funds for the 1 company company funds for the 1 company company's 9 company funds for the above 1 company funds for the 1 company company's 6 company funds for the above 1 company company funds's 9 company funds for the above 9 company funds's 1 company funds company funds for the company funds's 9 company funds for the above 9 company funds.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Han-jin (Presiding Justice)