The plaintiff can exercise the right to claim the payment of deposit money, which is a creditor who has given prior notice of the fixed date.

In cases where a debtor (transfer of a claim) or a third party debtor (a seizure of a claim, etc.) makes a mixed deposit on the grounds of repayment and execution deposit, the right to claim payment of the deposit money belongs to the creditor who has given the notice with the highest fixed date prior to the claim for payment of the deposit money. Therefore, the plaintiff can exercise the right to claim payment of the deposit money

2012da25251 Action to confirm the claim for payment of deposit money

AAAA Capital Company

Republic of Korea 1 other

May 3, 2013

May 31, 2013

1. On August 31, 2012, Nonparty AB confirmed that the right to claim for payment of deposit money of KRW 000 deposited by Suwon District Court No. 6738 of 2012 was the Plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts may be acknowledged between the plaintiff and the defendant Republic of Korea by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions of Gap evidence 1 through 8 and the overall purport of the pleadings, and between the plaintiff and defendant CCC, pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, it shall be deemed that defendant CCC has led to confession.

A. On April 29, 2010, Defendant CCC leased OOOO apartment 00 000 000 000 000 o-dong, Suwon-gu, Suwon-si, and during the lease period from June 30, 2010 to June 30, 2012, and paid 000 won of the above deposit to Jung-B around June 30, 2010.

나. 피고 CCC은 2010. 6. 11. 대부업자인 원고와 사이에 대출과목 전세자금대출， 대 출금액 0000원， 대출기간 2010. 6. 25.부터 24개월， 약정이자율 '기준금리 + 3.85%(3개월 변동금리)' 지연배상금율 '기준금리 + 13.85%'로 정하여 대출계약을 체결 하였고， 같은 날 위 대출금채무의 담보를 위하여 원고에게 위 가.항 임대차계약에 따른 임대차보증금반환채권(이하 '이 사건 채권'이라 한다)을 양도하였다. 임대인 정BB는 2J)10. 6. 15. 、위 채권양도를 승낙하였고， 2010. 6. 18. 그 채권양도 승낙서에 확정일자를받았다

C. Meanwhile, on May 13, 201, the Defendant Republic of Korea, a creditor of Defendant CCC, was issued a provisional seizure order on the instant claims with the claim amount of KRW 000,000 with Suwon District Court 201Kadan101218, and the written decision on provisional seizure was served on June 7, 201 with the third debtor statusB on June 7, 2011. In addition, the Defendant Republic of Korea, upon receipt of a provisional seizure and collection order to transfer the said provisional seizure amount to the Suwon District Court 2012TB, was served on the third debtor statusB on February 10, 2012.

D. Accordingly, under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, the depositer was determined as either the Plaintiff or Defendant CCC on August 31, 2012, the Suwon District Court deposited KRW 297,125,690 (hereinafter referred to as “instant deposit”) with respect to the instant claim that Defendant CCC transferred to the Plaintiff, on the ground that she could not know who is true creditor, after being served with the notice of provisional attachment, pressure, and collection order.

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

If a creditor satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims by a notification, etc. with a fixed date after obtaining a transfer of claims against a third party obligor, the claim subject to transfer may be transferred to the creditor, and if a third party obligor deposits the amount of claims equivalent to the transferred claims, the creditor shall be deemed to have acquired the right to demand payment, unless there are special circumstances as to the deposit. Meanwhile, where a claim has been transferred double, the creditor shall be deemed to have obtained the right to demand payment, unless there are special circumstances. This legal doctrine is the same as in cases where a notification of transfer at the fixed date for the assignment of claims has been delivered to the debtor or before the fixed date for the acceptance of the provisional seizure or seizure order for the same claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994), and where the obligor satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims by notification, etc. subject to the seizure or provisional seizure, and even if the obligor satisfies the requirements for setting up against another creditor, it shall be deemed to have no effect as the same reason for seizure or provisional attachment.

(b)the existence of interest in the verification.

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, the deposit of this case is deemed to be a mixed deposit in which the execution deposit on the ground that the assignee of this case has been designated as the beneficiary of this case and the provisional seizure competes with each other. In the case of a mixed deposit, the transferee of this case may pay the deposit only with the written consent attached to the certificate of the provisional seizure creditor, etc., as stated in the deposit and the certificate of the provisional seizure creditor, etc., or with the final judgment in favor of the confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit against other deposited parties or against them (see the questionnaire 302-129 inquiry of the deposit corporation as of June 5, 2004, and No. 20103-3 of the established rules number), and the Plaintiff, the assignee of this case, as the transferor of the claim, has the interest to seek confirmation that the Plaintiff has the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit of this case against the Defendant C and the seizure authority on the claim of this case against the Plaintiff.

C. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Defendant Republic of Korea, even though the Plaintiff’s right to the instant deposit, asserts that the Plaintiff’s right is limited to his claim amount, and Defendant Republic of Korea also has the right to the remainder. However, as seen earlier, insofar as the Plaintiff acquired the instant claim and satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims on June 18, 2010, and even if the instant claim was subsequently provisionally seized or seized after the Defendant Republic of Korea’s transfer to the Plaintiff, it does not have any effect and the Defendant Republic of Korea has any right to the instant claim or the instant deposit, and such legal principle does not change even if the instant claim was made for the purpose of securing the assignment of claims. The foregoing argument by Defendant Republic of Korea is without merit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, each claim against the Defendants is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.