beta
Text
1. As to the amount of 44,301,180 won, which was deposited by the Sung forest Co., Ltd. with the Seoul Central District Court No. 16643, 2014.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On April 4, 2014, the Plaintiff acquired the lease deposit claim (hereinafter “instant claim”) against Defendant A’s Sung Forest Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) from Defendant A (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”). The said transfer was notified to Nonparty Company on April 8, 2014 by means of a certificate with a fixed date.
B. The Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Ma1258) rendered on May 16, 2014; the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Ma1258 on the seizure and collection order on the instant claims; the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014MaMa12940 on May 22, 2014; the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Ma15694 on the seizure and collection order on the instant claims of Defendant D (Seoul Central District Court 2014Ma15694) was served on June 5, 2014; the provisional seizure order (Seoul Central District Court 2014Ma1284) on the instant claims of Defendant C was served on Nonparty E on June 5, 2014; and the provisional seizure order (Seoul Central District Court 2014Kadan1306) on the instant claims of this case on June 9, 2014.
C. On July 2014, when notification of the assignment of claims, seizure of claims, and provisional seizure were concurrent, Nonparty Company: (a) deducted some of the instant claims from the Plaintiff and the Defendants under the name of delinquency, etc. on the grounds of creditor uncertainty and competition between the seizure of claims as set forth in gold No. 16643 in 2014; and (b) deducted the remainder of KRW 44,301,180 from the deposit (hereinafter “instant deposit”).
[Ground of recognition] Defendant C, D, E: The fact that there is no dispute between Defendant A, A, and B, Gap 1 through 3, Eul 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the party's assertion
A. In a case where multiple transfers of claims, provisional seizure and seizure collection orders compete with respect to the same claim as to the same claim, the priority order should be determined based on the date of arrival to the third debtor of the collection order, notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date, provisional seizure and seizure collection order.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da24223, Apr. 26, 1994).