beta
Text
1. BJD Co., Ltd. between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) on December 29, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On October 8, 2014, the Plaintiff received from the non-party company (hereinafter “non-party company”) a claim for the amount of KRW 680,000,000 from the non-party company’s IMD (hereinafter “the instant contract for the assignment of claims”), and the non-party company notified the non-party company of the said assignment of claims by means of content-certified mail with a fixed date on October 21, 2014, and issued the notice of the said assignment of claims on October 23, 2014.
B. Since then, Defendant A, Defendant A, the primary traffic, B, and Taelim C, the creditor of the non-party company, was subject to the provisional seizure order on the instant claim. The original copy of the provisional seizure order on the claim reached the MDren Co., Ltd. between October 23, 2014 and December 5, 2014.
C. On December 29, 2014, Mice Co., Ltd. deposited KRW 382,926,400 on the ground that there exists competition between assignment of claims and provisional seizure of claims, based on Article 487 of the Civil Act and Articles 291 and 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the non-party company or the Plaintiff as the principal deposit.
(hereinafter referred to as “the deposit of this case”). / [Grounds for recognition] Gap 1, 2, Eul 1 through 4 (Evidence Nos. 1, 1, 2, and 1 through 4 (Evidence No. 3)] The purport of the whole pleadings
2. The order of seizure or provisional seizure between the transferee of the claim in the judgment of the principal claim and the person who executed the execution of the order of seizure or provisional seizure on the same claim shall follow the time when the notice of the assignment of claim with the fixed date reaches the debtor and the time when the original copy of the decision of seizure or provisional seizure reaches the third debtor. According to the above facts, since the notice of the assignment of claim with the fixed date reaches the MTren Co., Ltd. prior to the notice of each provisional seizure issued by the defendants, the effect of the assignment of claim in this case is preferred to the provisional seizure,
3. The defendants' judgment on the counterclaim claim is in this case.