It is difficult to see that the plaintiff's notification constitutes a tort.

As long as the notice of assignment of claims is prepared and delivered to the plaintiff, it seems that the notice of assignment of claims is naturally scheduled, and it is difficult to see that the plaintiff's notice of assignment of claims constitutes tort on the ground that the plaintiff

2012 Confirmation of a claim for payment of deposit money

IsaA

CC et al.

July 30, 2012

September 3, 2012

1. The Defendants confirmed that, among the deposited money deposited by BB as the Seoul Central District Court No. 13847 in 201, the Defendant’s claim for payment of deposit money against the Plaintiff by the DefendantCC (the amount calculated at the rate of 30% per annum from 000 won to 30% per annum from 32 April 22, 2011) was against the Plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On September 28, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 000 toCC (hereinafter “CC”), and on the same day, took over KRW 000 to BB (hereinafter “BB”) ofCC as a security for the said loan fromCC, andCC reached BB on August 4, 2010 by giving notice of the assignment of claims by content certification to BB.

B. On May 19, 2011, DefendantCC filed a lawsuit for the return of loans with the same court in relation to the lawsuit for the confirmation of existence of liability 2010 Gohap12638 (principal lawsuit) with the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2010 Gohap 12638 (principal lawsuit) that DefendantCC filed against the Plaintiff as a counterclaim.

The Supreme Court rendered a judgment that "the plaintiff shall pay 000 won and 30% interest per annum to the plaintiff jointly and severally, from April 22, 2011 to the day of full payment." The judgment was finalized on February 21, 2012 by dismissing all appeals.

C. On December 16, 2010, Defendant HongD received the Seoul Central District Court 2010TT 2010T 48339 and issued a collection order with respect to the fee claim againstCC BB on December 16, 2010. The above claim attachment and collection order reached BB on December 22, 2010.

D. On July 15, 2011, 201, BB was notified of the transfer of obligation to CC’s claims such as fees to BB, but there was a dispute as to the transfer of obligation thereafter, and it was impossible to determine the validity of the transfer of obligation and the priority order of the seizure and the collection order as it was served after the notice of the transfer of obligation was served with RedD and issued with the seizure and collection order after the notice of the transfer of obligation. As such, BB deposited the debt amount of KRW 54,298,817 in accordance with the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, it was the cause of deposit, and the said money with DefendantCC or the Plaintiff as

was deposited as 13847.

E. On February 7, 2012, Defendant Republic of Korea notified CC’s fee claim attachment based on 000 won in arrears pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act, and around that time, the above notification of attachment reached BB.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Entry of Evidence A 1-11, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts to the purport that it is unlawful to seek confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposit against Defendant Republic of Korea, which is a third party, because it is not the person under deposit. First of all, according to the above acknowledged facts, the deposit of this case constitutes a mixed deposit with the nature of repayment deposit and its execution deposit in comprehensive consideration of the statutory provisions stated on the ground, the description of the cause of deposit, the circumstances leading to the deposit, etc. Meanwhile, in terms of the mixed deposit, the deposit holder deposits not only the person under deposit but also the execution creditor, including the provisional seizure creditor, with the claim for the return of deposit. In light of this purport, it is insufficient that the deposit holder has a document to prove the existence of the right to claim the return of deposit only in relation to the other person under deposit, and in relation to the above execution creditor, the document to prove that the right to claim the return of deposit has been established and submitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012).

3. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the above facts, since the Plaintiff has a claim against DefendantCC pursuant to the above final judgment and the Plaintiff and DefendantCC’s acquisition of the instant claim in order to secure this claim are also deemed effective, the above acquisition of the claim is deemed invalid with respect to Defendant HongD, which reached the third obligor after the above acquisition of the claim. Therefore, the Plaintiff has a right to pay out the amount equivalent to the amount of the said claim against DefendantCC out of the above deposit. However, as long as BBB made a mixed deposit, the Plaintiff has a legal interest to seek confirmation of the above claim for payment of the deposit within the scope of the said claim against the Defendants who asserted the Plaintiff’s rights.

B. Determination on DefendantCC’s assertion

1) Although DefendantCC asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim under the above judgment became final and conclusive only by 000 won, DefendantCC’s assertion is the principal and interest of the amount claimed by DefendantCC, and as such, DefendantCC’s claim is not accepted as to the Plaintiff’s claim on the disposition damages for delay.

2) DefendantCC asserts to the effect that since DefendantCC suffered losses from KRW 18,641,095, which is the statutory interest amount on the above transfer amount, from August 4, 2010 to February 21, 2012, by notifying the Plaintiff’s claim KRW 000, and by allowing DefendantCC to receive fees from time to time by notifying the Plaintiff of the assignment of claim regarding KRW 00,00,00, the above amount should be deducted. As seen above, insofar as the said assignment of claim is performed to secure the Plaintiff’s loan claim and DefendantCC issued the notice of the assignment of claim to the Plaintiff, the notification of the transfer of claim is naturally expected, and it is difficult to view that the Plaintiff’s notification is a tort on the ground that the Plaintiff sent the notice of the said assignment of claim to the BB while the Plaintiff’s loan claim remains. Accordingly, the above assertion by DefendantCC based on the premise that the liability for damages due to a tort was established in relation to the assignment of claim is not accepted.

C. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

Defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the Plaintiff’s notice of assignment is forged and sent to BB, and thus, the notification of transfer is not effective. However, there is no other evidence to acknowledge it solely with the statement of evidence No. 3. Rather, according to the above evidence, the Plaintiff andCC’s instant notice of assignment is valid and the notification of transfer is deemed to legally reached BB by a certificate with a fixed date. Accordingly, Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.