Youngjin Construction Co., Ltd. and one other (Law Firm Rois, Attorneys Kang-gu et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Co., Ltd. and three others (Law Firm Chungcheong, Attorney Kim Jong-ju, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

An independent party intervenor (Attorney Lee Chang-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

March 23, 2011

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2009Da120127, 2009Gahap120134 decided July 7, 2010 (Intervention)

1. The plaintiffs' appeals against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

1. Purport of claim and appeal

Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part on the principal suit shall be revoked. The part on the principal suit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked. The part on the principal suit in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be 14,16,90 won for the defendant Bosch Rexroth Co., Ltd., the 479,186,40 won for the construction of the defendant Hansung Co., Ltd., the 15,223,120 won for the defendant Han-ju Co., Ltd., and the 10,045,860 won for the defendant Han-ju Co., Ltd., and the 20

2. Purport of participation by the independent party;

On September 11, 2008, the Seoul Eastern District Court confirmed that the right to claim for payment of deposit money of KRW 582,066,762 deposited by the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 2008 was an independent party intervenor (hereinafter referred to as the " participant"). The intervenor is a corporation 14,16,90 won in case of defendant Bosch Rexroth Co., Ltd., and KRW 15,223,120 in case of defendant Han-ju Co., Ltd., and KRW 10,045,860 in case of the above money and KRW 20% per annum from the day following the written application for participation of the independent party to the case to the day of complete payment (the intervenor submitted an application for revision of the purport of the claim in this court, and the agreement on the transfer of collective security, list / [Attachment 1] or list / [Attachment 2] of separate parties to the contract, as well as the purport of each amendment to the purport of the claim.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff Youngjin Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Plaintiff Youngjin”) supplied the Changjin Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Changjin Industry”) with sea sand (one-time washing machine) as a raw material for the production of ready-mixed, and the Changjin Industry has supplied ready-mixed to the Defendants.

B. The creative industry has issued to the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation a promissory note, the payment date of which was about four months after the date of issuance of the tax invoice, and the detailed details are as follows.

(unit: source)

Details of the supply of promissory notes, contained in the main sentence, shall be 369,41,90 on October 4, 2007 at the issue date of the supply price of the goods, and 369,41,90 on April 30, 2008; 369,41,90 on Nov. 29, 2007; 813,80 on May 31, 2008; 2008; 36. 279,078,86. 86. 8. 8, 207; 8. 8. 8. 8, 207; 8. 8. 6. 8, 207; 8. 8. 8. 6. 8, 207; 8. 8. 8. 8. 2, 2008; 8. 8. 6, 2008;

C. On April 21, 2008, the creative industry requested the said Plaintiff to extend the payment date of the promissory note No. 1 as of April 30, 2008, which is the date of payment, to August 5, 2008. On April 27, 2008, the said Plaintiff’s payment date of the said promissory note was extended from the said Plaintiff, and entered into an agreement with the said Plaintiff on April 27, 2008 to transfer the payment claim against the customer of the creative industry to the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

At the time, the creative industry issued approximately 20 copies of the transfer amount, the date of the transfer contract, the assignment contract with the third debtor in blank, and the notice of assignment of claims.

D. In order to receive washing money for the creative industry on April 30, 2008, as shown in the [Attachment 2] list, the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation added each blank part of the above assignment contract and the notice of assignment of claims, and then notified the Defendants of the assignment by mail with each fixed date, and at that time the notice reached the Defendants each time (hereinafter the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation’s exercise of the right to completion of the reservation of the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation’s work (hereinafter the attached Table 2) (the “contract for the first assignment of claims”). List 4 of the attached Table 2 and the notice of assignment of claims between the Plaintiffs are written as Nonparty 1 of the two original construction. However, in light of the description of the evidence No. 1 (d), Nonparty 1 cannot be deemed null and void since it is apparent that it is a clerical error of Defendant 4’s “Defendant 4,” which was operated by the two original construction.

E. At the time, the Plaintiff Youngjin Co., Ltd: (a) filled up a blank agreement on the assignment of a claim in blank with respect to KRW 1,931,128,462, including the claim listed in the [Attachment 2] list at the time; and (b) sent a notice of the assignment of claim to the third debtor on April 30, 2008 and May 1, 2008.

F. After May 13, 2008, the Plaintiff Youngjin transferred the claim against Defendant 4 among each of the above claims to Plaintiff 2. On May 14, 2008, Defendant 4, the garnishee, notified the transfer of the claim by content-certified mail with a fixed date, and the notification was delivered to the above Defendant around that time (hereinafter “the contract for the transfer and acquisition of the above claim between the Plaintiffs”).

G. On the other hand, on March 31, 2008, the creative industry was unable to settle one promissory note of KRW 225,571,500 at par value due to the shortage of deposits, and the first default took place. On April 30, 2008, the second default took place due to the failure to pay the total of KRW 85,326,50 on the face value of the promissory note of KRW 21. On April 30, 2008. The creative industry was suspended from business from the date of the second default, and was subject to a disposition of credit transaction suspension on May 6, 2008.

On July 17, 2008, the creative industry was declared bankrupt in the Seoul Central District Court 2008Hahap32 case and was appointed by the intervenor as the bankruptcy trustee.

H. Meanwhile, on September 11, 2008, the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 3729, Sept. 11, 2008, which received a large number of assignment of claims and provisional attachment notification, and on the ground that the provisional attachment did not know any creditor and the provisional attachment competition, the deposited person was “original industry, Plaintiff Youngjin Co., Ltd., Ltd., or Symyang Industries Co., Ltd., or Hyundai Asian Bank Co., Ltd., or Hyundai Asian Bank Co., Ltd. or Limited Co., Ltd., Ltd., or, on the grounds that the provisional attachment competes with each other, deposited the deposited person by mixing the deposit amount of KRW 582,389,06,762 (hereinafter “instant deposit money”).

[Reasons for Recognition] A without dispute; Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, 10, 11, 13, 14; Eul evidence Nos. 5 through 8; Eul evidence Nos. 4 through 7; Byung; Byung No. 4, 9, and 10 (including each number); part of the testimony of Non-Party 2 and 3 of the witness of this court; the testimony of this court; the order of submission of each financial transaction information to the Korean Bank and the Korea Financial Clearing Board; the purport of the entire pleadings;

2. Summary of the plaintiffs and intervenors' assertion

A. The plaintiffs' assertion

The Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation acquired each claim for the purchase price of goods listed in the [Attachment 1] or [Attachment 2] list against the Defendants of the Changjin Industry, and Plaintiff 2 acquired again the claim No. 4 from the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation. Thus, the Defendants are obligated to pay to the Plaintiffs the purchase price under the contract for the assignment of claims as stated in the main claim.

B. Intervenor’s assertion

1) The instant agreement concluded between the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation and the Changjin Industry, the attached list [Attachment 1] or [Attachment 2] of the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation and the attached list [Attachment 1] or [Attachment 2] of the declaration of intent to complete the reservation and the attached list [Attachment 2] are all acts subject to the exercise of the avoidance power under Article 391 subparagraph 1 or 3 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act (hereinafter “Integrated Act”). The instant agreement and the agreement to complete the reservation become invalid upon the exercise of the avoidance power, and the instant claim transferred to the Plaintiffs were returned to the Changjin Industry again.

2) Accordingly, Defendant Bosch Rexroth Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Han Co., Ltd.”) and Defendant 4 are obligated to pay the price for the instant goods to the intervenors, who are successors to the creative industry, and the right to claim the payment of the instant goods deposited by Defendant Han Han Construction, are also the intervenors.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant Han-ju and Defendant 4

A. The plaintiff Young-jin Corporation's principal claim and the intervenor's claim against the defendant Han-jin Corporation

In light of the respective descriptions in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 and 2-2 of Eul evidence No. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 3-4 and Eul evidence No. 4-4, it is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the creative industry had claims of KRW 15,23,120 against the defendant Han-ju, such as the table No. 3 in the attached Table No. 1 [Attachment No. 1] or [Attachment No. 2] prior to the first assignment of claims, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, at the time of April 30, 2008, the claims against the plaintiff Young-jin Corporation and the intervenor against the above defendant are without merit, under the premise that the creative industry held claims of KRW 15,223,120 against the defendant Han-ju as of April 30, 200.

B. As to the plaintiff 2's main claim against the defendant 4 and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant 4

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments in Gap evidence 3-5, Eul evidence 4-5, Eul evidence 4-1, Eul evidence 2-1, Eul evidence 2-2, and Eul evidence 3, it can be acknowledged that the creative industry had claims of KRW 10,045,860 against defendant 4 prior to the first assignment contract.

In regard to this, Defendant 4's defense that all of the above obligations were satisfied, and in full view of the statement of evidence No. 3, evidence No. 4, testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings by Non-Party 4 of the first instance trial witness, Defendant 4 can be acknowledged to have discharged all of the above obligations prior to the contract of the first assignment of claims. Thus, the above defendant's defense has merit.

Ultimately, the plaintiff 2's main claim and the intervenor's claim, which are premised on the existence of the claim against the above defendant in the creative industry, are without merit.

4. Determination as to the principal claim against Defendant Bosch Rexroth Co., Ltd. and the Intervenor’s claim against Defendant Bosch Rexroth Co., Ltd. and the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation

A. The above Defendants were liable for the creative industry around April 30, 2008.

1) Defendant Bosch Rexroth.

Unless there are special circumstances, Defendant Bosch Rexroth has a duty to pay the price for the goods to the creative industry, as it is the fact that Defendant Bosch Rexroth has received a total of KRW 14,166,900 from the creative industry on April 8, 2008 and April 21, 2008.

On January 4, 2008, the above defendant supplied 13,015,200 won of ready-mixed to the window industry prior to the delivery of the above ready-mixed. Thus, the above defendant asserts that if each of the above claims is offset and processed, only the obligation to pay 1,151,700 won, which is the difference in the window industry, has been left.

Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 1 through 3 above, Defendant Bosch Rexroth has agreed to automatically offset the above promissory note within an equal amount as soon as the bonds and obligations are incurred simultaneously with the delivery of ready-mixed to the creative industry on January 4, 2008. Defendant Bosch Rexroth has around the above time supplied 13,015,200 won to the creative industry and delivered promissory note (the payment date on July 10, 2008) equivalent to the above price on March 18, 2008 but delivered on April 30, 2008.

According to the above facts of recognition, around April 2008, KRW 13,015,200 against the creative industry of Defendant Bosch Rexroth was offset by the claim amounting to KRW 14,166,90 against the Defendant Bosch Rexroth in the creative industry. Thus, prior to the first assignment contract, prior to the first assignment contract, only KRW 1,151,70 (i.e., KRW 14,166,90 - KRW 13,015,200) remains.

In other words, the above defendant asserts that all of the above money was paid after the judgment of the court of first instance, and according to the whole purport of evidence No. 9 and the argument No. 19, it can be acknowledged that defendant Bosch Rexroth has paid KRW 1,252,292 to the intervenors on July 20, 2010 in order to prevent the expansion of damages for delay cited by the judgment of first instance and to escape compulsory execution based on the declaration of provisional execution attached to the judgment.

However, the validity of repayment due to provisional execution is not fixed, but is merely derived from the cancellation condition that the declaration of provisional execution or the cancellation of the judgment on the merits in the appellate court. Thus, even if the defendant paid the amount of provisional execution based on the judgment of the court of first instance, the appellate court should decide the validity of the relevant claim without considering it (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da26175, 26182, October 8, 1993, etc.).

Therefore, the above defendant's money paid by the provisional execution order attached to the judgment of the court of first instance does not have a conclusive effect on repayment, but it takes place only when the judgment becomes final and conclusive. Thus, the above defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2) Defendant Hando Construction

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in Eul evidence 2-1 through 60, the creative industry may recognize the fact that it had a claim of KRW 582,389,060 against defendant Hanhan Construction prior to the first assignment of assignment of assignment, and each statement in Gap evidence 3-3, Gap evidence 4-4, and Eul evidence 4-1 is insufficient to reverse the above fact, and there is no other counter-proof.

3) Sub-decisions

At the time of the assignment of the first claim, the creative industry had the claim amounting to KRW 1,151,700 for the goods of Defendant Bosch Rexroth, and the claim amounting to KRW 582,389,060 for the goods of Defendant Han Han Construction.

B. Whether the instant agreement and the agreement were expressed, and whether the first assignment of claims was denied

Since the creative industry was transferred to the Corporation on April 30, 2008, each of the above claims held by the said Defendants against the said Defendants, the participant's ownership of each of the above claims shall be determined depending on the validity of the exercise of the avoidance power by the intervenor. Therefore, it shall be viewed as a matter of course.

1) Whether the instant agreement, the declaration of intent to complete the reservation, and the first assignment of claims are subject to the exercise of the avoidance power

A) In the case of the instant agreement:

(1) The nature of the instant agreement

The instant agreement constitutes “transfer of a pre-contract collective claim” that aims at transferring the rights to the Defendants of the creative industry in order for the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation and the creative industry to secure the Defendant’s obligation for cleaning of the goods of the creative industry. As such, the instant agreement grants the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the right of choice to choose a claim to be transferred or acquired as payment in kind among the claim for the creative industry at the same time, and at the same time granting the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the right of choice to choose a claim to be assigned or acquired as payment in kind among the claim for the creative industry, in order to ensure the effectiveness and convenience of the said Plaintiff’s exercise of the right of choice and the right of completion in reservation, the creative industry grants the said Plaintiff the right of representation on behalf of the said Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2001Da46761, Jul. 9, 2002, etc.).

(2) Whether a contract for the transfer of collective security for a pre-contract is subject to the exercise of avoidance power

In the case of a pre-contracted collective security agreement, the effect of a change in rights is not immediately created by the agreement, but only arising from the exercise of the right to complete the pre-contracted. However, since the pre-contracted collective security agreement provides the creditor with the right to complete the pre-contracted, right to choose the claims to be transferred or acquired, and right to notify the fact of assignment of claims, it can be deemed as a biased act that evades the principle of equality of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings by offering a security only to a specific creditor, and therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the contract constitutes an object of the exercise of the right to set aside under the Consolidated Act.

B) In the case of the declaration of intent to complete the instant reservation

According to Article 391 Subparag. 1 of the Integrated Dosan Act, the subject of avoidance is, in principle, the act of the company prior to bankruptcy. However, the act of filling the blanks of each transfer contract, such as the list [Attachment 2] attached hereto, by the Plaintiff Young-jin Corporation, constitutes an act of the Plaintiff Young-jin Corporation, which is subject to denial by the Intervenor, because it constitutes an act of the Plaintiff Young-jin Corporation, as it exercises the right to choose the claim for the payment of the cleaning company

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the statements in the evidence and evidence Nos. 2 and 3 as seen earlier, the creative industry at the time of the declaration of intention to complete the reservation of this case had rapidly aggravated financial standing, and the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation, in collusion with the creative industry, received information related to the claims to the Defendants from the creative industry in order to preferentially secure its claims with a prior knowledge of this situation, and thereby exercised its right to complete the reservation of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation, in collusion with the debtor's creative industry, intended to express its intent to complete the reservation of this case. Accordingly, the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation, in turn, expressed its intent to complete the reservation of this case in collusion with the debtor's creative industry, is deemed to have reached the declaration of intention to complete the reservation of this case. (See Supreme Court Decision 2001Da46761 Decided July 9, 202, etc.).

(1) Even if there was no act of the company prior to the bankruptcy, if there were special circumstances, such as in collusion with the company prior to the bankruptcy, it can exceptionally be said that the act of the creditor or the third party is identical to the act of the company.

(2) On April 21, 2008, the instant agreement was made on the 27th of the same month as the Changjin Industries requested the extension of the due date of promissory notes, the payment date of which is close to the Plaintiff Youngjin Construction. The Changjin Industries was on April 30, 2008 immediately after the date of the said agreement, and was subject to the disposition of suspension of transaction on May 6, 2008.

(3) The time when the Plaintiff Youngjin completed the first assignment contract by filling up the blank part is the time the said contract ceases to exist.

(4) At the time of April 30, 2008, the date of the declaration of intention to complete the above reservation, the Plaintiff Youngjin acquired bonds of KRW 1,931,128,462 including the bonds stated in [Attachment 2] in the separate sheet by exercising the right to complete reservation (as to the promissory notes of KRW 369,41,90, which became due on April 30, 2008, the due date for which the payment date has been due, appears to have been postponed).

(5) On April 30, 2008, the Plaintiff Youngjin had been provided with a specification of claims from the creative industry, including the customers of the creative industry, the scale of the amount of the claims, etc., and could exercise the right to make an advance payment based on the pre-contract for the transfer of collective bonds, and the claim for the transfer of claims against other transaction parties than the above claims is in progress.

C) In the case of the first assignment contract of this case

The intervenor asserts that the contract of the first assignment of claims concluded according to the declaration of intent to complete the reservation of this case is denied.

However, it is reasonable to view that the first assignment of claims is not an act of a creditor that is deemed identical to an act of a debtor or an act of a debtor, but merely an act of a legal effect formed by the declaration of intent to complete the reservation of the Plaintiff Young-jin Corporation, and it is not an act of exercising the right to set aside under the Integrated Domination Act (if the declaration of intent to complete the reservation of Plaintiff Young-jin Corporation is denied, the first assignment of claims will be null and void

2) Denial of the instant agreement and the declaration of intent to complete the reservation

Article 391 Item 1 of the Consolidated Bankruptcy Act provides that "the act that is prescribed as an act that may be avoided by the bankrupt shall prejudice the bankruptcy creditors" includes not only so-called fraudulent act which absolutely reduces the general property of the bankrupt who is a joint security of all creditors, but also so-called correspondence which is contrary to the fairness of other bankruptcy creditors, such as repayment to a specific creditor or provision of a security, by affecting the bankrupt's property relationship with the bankrupt's property, thereby favorable to a specific bankruptcy creditor in terms of the

On the other hand, in order to constitute such an act of denial, the bankrupt is required to be aware that it would prejudice the bankruptcy creditor as a subjective element. In determining whether it falls under the above requirement, whether there is a perception that the repayment or offering of security to a specific creditor would be made only to a specific creditor in order to avoid the principle of creditor equality applied when bankruptcy proceedings commence (see Supreme Court Decision 2003Da271, Nov. 10, 2005).

However, in light of the circumstances examined in the above Paragraph 1, the instant agreement and the declaration of intent to complete the reservation constitutes a biased act that evades the principle of equality of creditors in bankruptcy proceedings by providing only a certain creditor with security.

In addition, according to the above circumstances, it is reasonable to view that the creative industry at the time recognized that the declaration of intent to complete the agreement and the reservation of this case was detrimental to the general creditors.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the intervenor may deny the agreement of this case concluded between the creative industry and the Plaintiff Young-jin Corporation pursuant to Article 391 subparagraph 1 of the Integrated Dosan Act and the expression of intent to complete the reservation of the Plaintiff Young-jin Corporation.

3) Determination on the plaintiffs' assertion

A) As to the assertion that an act was socially reasonable

The plaintiffs asserted that the creative industry is not subject to the denial of the intervenors because it is socially necessary or reasonable in the best way for rehabilitation by continuously producing ready-mixeds by the creative industry, even on April 30, 2008, when the creative industry was defaulted.

Only the descriptions of evidence Nos. 8 and 9 and some testimonys of Non-Party 3 and 2 of the witness witnesses of this court are hard to recognize that the creative industry was supplied with a washing house additionally by the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation until April 30, 208, as alleged by the Plaintiffs, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Even if the creative industry was engaged in normal business after being supplied with washing machines by the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation by April 30, 2008, it is difficult to readily conclude that the instant agreement and the declaration of intent to complete the reservation was socially necessary or reasonable, or inevitable, in light of the fact that the said agreement and the declaration of intent to complete the reservation was settled on the same day and received disposition of suspension of transaction.

The above assertion by the plaintiffs is without merit.

B) As to the assertion that the Plaintiff Youngjin was bona fide by the beneficiary

In other words, the plaintiffs asserted that the creative industry entered into a first assignment contract without knowledge of the circumstances that the net income for the business year 2006 was KRW 192,046,428, and the net income for the business year 2007 was also KRW 313,454,211, and that, at the time, treatment construction was entered into a contract for the installation and supply of an offshore plant at the third-party Highway construction site, which is a construction contractor, and that sales would have been increased in the future, such as purchase of annual tin acid, etc., and that there was a normal business on the date of the bankruptcy, and that the plaintiff Young-jin was a bona fide beneficiary who did not know of the circumstances that it would prejudice the general creditors of the creative industry by entering into a first assignment contract of claims without knowing that

In light of each description of evidence Nos. 8 through 10, 12 and evidence Nos. 7, 9, and 12, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff Youngjin Corporation was a bona fide beneficiary at the time of the plaintiff Youngjin Corporation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

The plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit.

(c) Effect of exercising the avoidance power;

Therefore, the agreement of this case between the creative industry and the plaintiff Young-jin Corporation and the expression of intent to complete the reservation of the plaintiff Young-jin Corporation would lose its effect by the intervenor's legitimate exercise of the avoidance power. Therefore, each of the above claims, which are assets deviating from the debtor of bankruptcy, were reverted to the creative industry.

Meanwhile, among the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation, the Intervenor, and the Defendants, there is no doubt that the Intervenor exercised the right to set aside as above, and there is no possibility to doubt that the Intervenor exercised the right to set aside. Therefore, even if the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation, the assignee of the claim, did not separately notify the said Defendants of the fact that the right to set aside was exercised, it is reasonable to deem that the Intervenor can immediately seek payment of the said amount against the said Defendants on the premise that the said claim against the said Defendants belongs to the creative industry.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, as the intervenor seeks, the defendant Bosch Rexroth has a duty to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation of the above defendant from March 6, 2009 to July 7, 2010, which is the day following the service date of the application for intervention by the independent party of this case, to pay to the intervenor the annual rate of 6% under the Commercial Act and 20% interest per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

On the other hand, the deposit of Defendant Hansan Construction is valid as a mixed deposit because the cause for the attachment agreement was made at the time of creditor's uncertainty and seizure agreement (where the amount of deposit made by the creditor against the creditor is less than the total amount of the obligation, the deposit shall be deemed valid under the good faith principle (see Supreme Court Decision 86Meu909, Mar. 22, 198). In addition, in light of the provisions of Article 10-2 of the Civil Procedure Act that provides that the garnishee who deposited the debt amount pursuant to the provisions of Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act may receive the expenses, etc. paid for the deposit of the part having the effect of the attachment from among the deposit money corresponding to the part having the effect of the attachment, it is reasonable to view that the deposit of the Defendant Hanhan Construction is valid as a mixed deposit). In relation to the Plaintiff Young Construction, the transferee of the claim related to the deposit, the claim related to the deposit shall be extinguished by the deposit of each of the above Defendants, and it shall be substituted for the claim for payment of the above goods.

However, the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit shall be made to the intervenors as seen earlier, and since the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation is disputing this, the Intervenor has a benefit to seek confirmation.

As above, inasmuch as the Intervenor’s respective claims against the above Defendants are accepted, the Plaintiff Youngjin Corporation’s claims against Defendant Bosch Rexroth and Hanhwa Construction are without merit.

5. Conclusion

The intervenor's claim against the defendant Hansung Construction is justified, and the claim against the defendant Hansung Construction is accepted within the scope of the above recognition. The remaining claim against the defendant Han-ju and the claim against the defendant Han-ju and the defendant 4 are without merit, and the plaintiffs' claim against the defendant is dismissed. The judgment of the court of first instance is just with this conclusion. Since the judgment of the court of first instance declares the rejection of the contract against the defendants of this case's first assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of contracts of this case (the judgment of the court of first instance declares the rejection of the contract of this case's first assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of assignment of claims of this case in the disposition of this case, it is not necessary to separately declare the denial of the contract of this case, but this part shall not be viewed

[Attachment]

Judges Lee Il-man (Presiding Judge)