There is priority to claim a payment of deposit to a person who takes precedence over the arrival of notice of assignment of claims.

Since the acquisition of claims between the plaintiff and the debtor is lawful, and the notification of the assignment of claims reaches the third debtor first, the plaintiff has priority in claiming the payment of the deposit.

○○ Central District Court -2019-Ban - ○1030

○○○○○

Korea

June 11, 2019

July 23, 2019

1. It is confirmed that the Seoul Central District Court’s claim for payment of KRW 20,00,000 out of KRW 111,403,821 of the deposit money of the deposit money of KRW 2011,403,821 is against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination on the claim against Defendant ○○ Co., Ltd.

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Grounds: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

(a) Facts of recognition;

The facts indicated in the grounds for the attachment, and the Plaintiff’s notification of the assignment of claims reached ○○○○○○○, a school juristic person, a garnishee on November 1, 2018. On the other hand, the time when the notification of attachment by the Defendant Republic of Korea reaches ○○○○○○, a school juristic person, even based on the Defendant’s assertion in the Republic of Korea may be acknowledged by either the parties’ dispute or the facts on November 5, 2018, either A1 through 7, and A1 through 4.

B. The legality of the transfer of claims

If the assigned claim is separate from other claims in terms of social norms and is sufficient to recognize its identity, such claim shall be deemed specified, and the type, amount, etc. of the transferred claim shall not be specified (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da5110, May 29, 1998).

At the time of concluding a contract with Defendant ○○○ (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) on the assignment of claims, the Plaintiff stated in the transfer contract that the Defendant Company will transfer the current and future claim against its obligor, and that the claim for the transfer of claims was assigned to the Plaintiff. As long as the Plaintiff received delegation from the Defendant Company regarding the notification of the transfer of claims, such as the transfer claim, maximum payment date, the obligor’s specification and addition, the claim for the transfer of claims is specified. Furthermore, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company continued a transaction after the execution of the contract for the supply of goods, and continued a transaction until the time of the notification of the transfer of claims in this case, and the Defendant Company incurred a claim for the purchase of goods while engaging in continuous transactions with its customer. Accordingly, the assignment of claims against the Plaintiff by the Defendant Company is lawful.

C. Priority over the Plaintiff’s notification of assignment of claims

As seen earlier, it can be known that the Plaintiff’s notification of assignment of claims has reached earlier than the notification of the attachment of the Defendant Republic of Korea. As such, within the limit of KRW 20 million, the claim for the amount of goods to ○○○○○○○○○○ of the Defendant Company had already been transferred to the Plaintiff prior to the notification of the attachment of the Defendant Republic of Korea. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to claim a refund of KRW 20 million, and the Defendant Republic of Korea

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.