If the notification of assignment of claims by a delinquent in arrears is served to a third obligor than the notification of attachment of claims, the State may not oppose the assignee.

The Plaintiff received KRW 300 million from the non-party delinquent to the third debtor, and sent a notice of assignment of claims to the third debtor with a certificate with a fixed date on April 16, 2014, and sent the notice to the third debtor on April 16, 2014. The notification of seizure of the above claims issued by the Defendant Republic of Korea reaches the third debtor on April 29, 201, and the Defendant issued a favorable judgment of the Plaintiff on

2014da 108189(principal lawsuit) for the confirmation of the right to withdraw deposit money

IsaA

Republic of Korea 20 others

June 2, 2015

June 18, 2015

1. On June 18, 2014, it is confirmed that CCC deposited 627,642,321 won with FOO in Seoul Southern District Court in 2014, the right to claim payment of deposit payment of KRW 300,000 among the 627,642,321 won is against the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

2. The defendant-Counterclaim plaintiff's counterclaim is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part incurred by the principal lawsuit is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff), the Defendants, and the part incurred by the counterclaim is borne by the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff).

Cheong-gu Office

【Main Office】

Paragraph (1) shall apply.

[Counterclaim]

1. On April 1, 2014, between the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) and Defendant BB, the agreement on the assignment of claims to Defendant BB regarding the goods return claim to Defendant BB Co., Ltd. shall be revoked within the scope of KRW 66,306,275.

2. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) shall notify Defendant BB of the purport that the part of KRW 66,306,275 of the claim for payment of the deposit under Paragraph (1) of the order was transferred to the Defendant BB, and that the said claim was transferred to the Republic of Korea (the public official in charge of deposit in Seoul Southern District Court).

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 17, 2014, thisA lent KRW 300 million to Defendant BB (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant BB”), Defendant BB (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant BB”), a stock company, and received KRW 300 million from Defendant BB’s CCC to secure this (hereinafter referred to as “instant assignment of claims”); Defendant BB made a notice of assignment of claims to the receiver and issued it to thisA and delegated the authority to notify the assignment of claims.

B. If Defendant BBB did not repay the loan even two months after the repayment period, thisA sent the notice of the assignment of the credit to Defendant BB with a certificate with a fixed date on March 18, 2014, and the notification of the transfer was issued on March 19, 2014. After which, at the request of Defendant BB, this A gave the notice of the said assignment of credit to CCC on April 16, 2014. After which, although the repayment date was postponed at the request of Defendant BB, Defendant BBB did not repay the loan, but thereafter, Defendant BBB did not receive the loan, which was kept on April 16, 2014, sent the notice of the transfer to CCC on the same day as a certificate with a fixed date with the notice of the transfer of credit issued on April 1, 2014.

C. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff, hereinafter “Defendant”), and the Defendants received provisional attachment, seizure, and collection order, etc. against Defendant BB’s claim against Defendant BB on or before the notice of assignment of the instant claim. The specific contents are as follows.

No.

Amount claimed (won)

Date of service

Details

1

DD

56,833,950

April 4, 2014

Provisional Seizure of Claim

2

EE

9,900,000

April 17, 2014

Provisional Seizure of Claim

3

IsaA

300,000,000

April 16, 2014

Transfer of Fixed Date Book

4

Korea

323,203,920

April 29, 2014

Attachment of Claims

50

50

D. CCC deposited KRW 627,642,321 as the deposited person under the Seoul Southern Site Act, based on Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, on June 18, 2014, on the grounds that the notice of assignment of the instant claim and multiple claims seizure were concurrent, and on the grounds that the creditor was not identified and seizure were concurrent (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”).

2. Determination as to thisA’s claims for principal action

(a) The claims of thisA;

If Defendant DD and EE’s claims for the preservation of provisional seizure are excluded, the deposit of this case will remain 560,908,371 won (627,642,321 won - Defendant DD 56,83,950 won - Defendant EE9,900,000 won), and the remaining Defendants’ claims seizure, etc. cannot be asserted against thisA because they were served to Defendant BB after April 16, 2014 when the notice of the assignment of claims of this case was received. Accordingly, thisA has a claim for payment of KRW 300 million out of the above deposit amount of KRW 560,908,371.

B. Determination

1) As to Defendant BB, 5, etc.

The above assertion of thisA is deemed to have been led to the confession of this Defendants pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act between thisA, Defendant BB, and .

2) As to Defendant DDR, Korea

A) In cases where a claim is transferred twice, the order between the assignee is determined by the date when the notification of the transfer with a fixed date of the assignment of claim reaches the obligor. This legal doctrine also applies to cases where a person who executed provisional attachment or attachment order on the same claim as the transferee of the claim determines the order.

According to the above facts, since the notice of the assignment of claims issued on April 16, 2014 by the certificate with a fixed date reached Defendant BB prior to the provisional seizure order, the provisional seizure order, the seizure and the collection order of the remaining Defendants other than Defendant DD and EE, among the 627,642,321 won of the instant deposit, Defendant DD, EE’s provisional seizure claim amounting to KRW 56,83,950,90,00 of the amount of the instant provisional seizure claim amounting to KRW 560,90,90,371 of the instant deposit amount would remain, and KRW 300,000 of the amount of the transferred claim amount of this case’s deposit amount is within its scope, the claim for payment of KRW 30,000,000 of the instant deposit amount would belong to thisA).

B) Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

The defendant Republic of Korea asserts that since the attachment of the defendant Republic of Korea takes precedence over the AA because it is impossible to verify whether the notice of assignment of claims by thisA on April 16, 2014 reached the CCC, a third debtor, the third debtor, the defendant Republic of Korea's claim for payment of the deposit money is not recognized.

However, in cases where a seizure based on the same claim is made based on the same claim after the debtor's claim against a third party was transferred to a third party and the notification of transfer with a fixed date was made, barring any circumstances such as cancellation or invalidation of the above assignment of claim, it shall be deemed that the seizure of the claim already reverted to a third party based on the tax claim against the debtor is merely a seizure of the claim that has already been granted to the third party. Therefore, this cannot be asserted against the third party who has acquired the claim due to a seizure based on the tax claim. The notification of the assignment of claim reached the CCC on April 16, 2014, and the notification of the seizure issued by the defendant Republic of Korea on April 29, 2014 is as seen earlier. Thus, the defendant Republic of Korea cannot oppose

3) Sub-decisions

Therefore, the claim for payment of KRW 300 million out of the instant deposit is made to thisA, and thisA has a benefit to seek confirmation against the Defendants, who are other victims and executing creditors, for the purpose of paying the said deposit, and therefore, thisA’s claim for principal lawsuit is reasonable.

3. Conclusion

If so, this AA's claim of principal lawsuit is accepted for the reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.