After the notification of the transfer of the claim with the fixed date date, the defendant Republic of Korea has no right to the deposit.

The amount of KRW 243,907,807, excluding the amount of claims of the defendants who notified provisional seizure prior to the plaintiff, is the payment of the plaintiff's deposit, and the defendant's Republic of Korea who seized the money after the plaintiff's notice of assignment of claims with the fixed date is not entitled

2012 Doz. 21631 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit Money

2012 Gohap24616 (Consolidated) Confirmation of the right to claim the payment of deposit money.

HongA

1. BB precise stock company and 16 others;

July 5, 2013

August 23, 2013

1. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff, among the OO members deposited by Suwon District Court No. 8565 on November 6, 2012, Suwon District Court (Seoul District Court Decision 2012, 2012, the right to claim for payment of deposit money against the OO members, was against the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's remaining claims are dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, 25% is borne by the Plaintiff, and the remainder is borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

On November 6, 2012, CCC, deposited by Suwon District Court No. 8565, 2012, confirming that the Plaintiff has the right to claim for payment of deposit money for OO members among OOO members.

1. Basic facts

“A. The Plaintiff owned a loan claim amounting to KRW OOO of Defendant BBC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as “BC”), but Defendant BBC transferred OO of the goods-price claim (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) held against Nonparty BCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) on May 21, 2012 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to repay the above loan by the due date. On May 24, 2012, Defendant BBC transferred OBC to the Plaintiff. On May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff obtained the fixed date in the instant contract for the assignment of claims, and around May 30, 2012, the Plaintiff sent CCC a written notice of the assignment of claims by way of content-proof, and reached the representative director on June 4, 2012. The instant notice of the assignment of claims (No. 7 evidence, and the instant notice of the assignment of claims”).

The addressee (debtor) stated in the "CCC representative director KimFF" as the "CCC representative director of the corporation" and attached the "A" contract of this case (Evidence No. 6). The contract of this case contains the signature of E and the seal impression of BB precision corporation, which is the transferor of the claim, and the representative director bears the seal of BB precision. The new creditor, the sender, who is the sender, was authorized to notify the assignment of the assignment of the claim in accordance with Article 6 of the contract of the transfer of the claim attached to the separate sheet to the debtor from the former creditor, as the transferee was also notified that the transferor and the receiver, the debtor, had the right to notify the assignment of the assignment of the claim.

Descriptions of the Bonds

gold OOOOOE

Of the proceeds of goods held by the former creditor (transferor) against the addressee (debtor), the amount until such time shall be the same as the above claims.

B. Meanwhile, with respect to the instant claim, the Plaintiff and the Defendants received the provisional seizure order, the seizure and collection order, and the assignment of claims as indicated below.

Table Omission of the Table

C. On November 6, 2012, CCC made a mixed deposit of OOO won in Suwon District Court No. 8565 in accordance with Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act and the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act on the grounds that the provisional attachment, collection order, assignment of claims, etc. are concurrent with respect to the instant claim on November 6, 2012 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

1. Defendant BB precision and seven others: deemed confessions (Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The remaining Defendants: The non-contentious facts, Gap evidence 1 through 17, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. Whether there exists interest in confirmation

In light of the above facts, since the combined nature of the deposit for repayment based on the cause of existence of creditor's uncertainty and the mixed deposit for execution based on the concurrent seizure is different from the deposit for repayment, the execution creditor (provisional seizure or execution creditor) also has an interest in who is the person subject to the deposit. Thus, in order for the person subject to the deposit to file a claim for the withdrawal of the deposit, it is insufficient to have a document proving that the person subject to the deposit has a right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit only in relation to another person under the relationship with the other person under the deposit, and in relation to the execution creditor, the document proving that the execution creditor has a right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit has a right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit is prepared and submitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012). According to the above facts, the deposit of this case constitutes a mixed deposit for repayment and the execution deposit based on the seizure or provisional seizure. Accordingly, the plaintiff has interest in seeking confirmation against the original creditor of the claim of this case and the Defendants.

B. Determination as to the legitimacy of an application for change of claim

1) Defendant HaG’s assertion

“The Plaintiff, at the complaint of the case No. 201631, filed a judgment on August 10, 2012 that “CCC is the Plaintiff.” However, on November 19, 2012, the Plaintiff changed the claim that “CCC seeks confirmation of the Plaintiff from among the deposited money deposited by Suwon District Court No. 8865, Dec. 6, 2012, 2012, the Plaintiff’s claim that “the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.” However, since each claim before and after the said change is deemed to be the basis of the claim, the Plaintiff’s claim and application for change of the cause of the claim are unlawful” and “the Plaintiff’s claim and application for change of the cause of claim are unlawful.”

The modification of a claim can be done by the time of the closure of argument in the fact-finding court to the extent that it does not change the foundation of the claim, unless it is obvious to delay the proceedings, and the modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, which is merely a different resolution method, in the same living or a dispute over the same economic interest, do not result in the modification of the foundation of the claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da35223, Nov. 24, 2006). In addition, in a case where most of the previous litigation data can be used for the purpose of examining a new claim, it cannot be said that the litigation procedure will be delayed (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da183, Apr.

According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 14, 15, 16, Eul evidence Nos. 1, and Eul evidence Nos. 1, CCC deposited the bonds of this case on August 10, 2012 with Busan District Court No. 7460, but the Suwon District Court deposited the bonds of this case on October 30, 2012 in the distribution procedure of dividends 201, it is recognized that the deposit was due to the error of CCC, and again collected the deposit money of this case on November 6, 2012 and deposited the bonds of this case under the Rule Nos. 8865, the defendant's claim to modify the claim of this case cannot be seen to have been amended to have the same economic interest as the plaintiff's claim of this case, since all of the claims before and after the correction of the claim of this case had been made due to the same legal reasons as the plaintiff's claim of this case.

B. Judgment on the merits

1) Determination on the cause of the claim

A) The plaintiff's assertion

Defendant BBC transferred to the Plaintiff on May 21, 2012 the amount equivalent to the above amount of the instant claim, and thus, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff to have the right to claim the return of the instant deposit equivalent to the above amount.

B) Determination

Where multiple transfers of claims, provisional seizure, seizure, and collection order are concurrent with respect to the same claim, the priority order should be determined based on the notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date, the provisional seizure of claims, and the date of arrival to the third debtor of the seizure and collection order (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994).

In light of the above legal principles in this case, among the OOO members of this case, the provisional seizure amount of the claims by Defendant HH, II, UJ, etc. is the aggregate of the amount of claims secured by the above provisional seizure, and there is no evidence to prove that the actual amount of claims secured by the above provisional seizure is less than the above amount among the above amount of claims transferred by the plaintiff among the OOO members of this case. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the total amount of claims secured by the provisional seizure of this case remains as the plaintiff's priority amount in relation to the deposit amount. If the above priority amount is deducted from the deposit amount of this case, the above priority amount remains, and this is within the scope of the OOO which is the amount of claims acquired by transfer of the fixed date of the plaintiff's next priority. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the right to claim payment of the deposit of this case belongs to the plaintiff.

2) Determination as to the defendants' assertion

A) Defendant KimK asserted that the assignment of the claim of this case is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the above defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

B) Defendant HaG, KimK, and Lee L, as the Plaintiff, the assignee, was notified of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment to third obligor CCC, the said assignment of the assignment is deemed null and void. However, the notification of the assignment of the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the third obligor under Article 450 of the Civil Act is irrelevant to the transferor’s direct and without the transferor’s consent, and the transferee of the claim may also be delegated with the authority to notify the assignment to the assignment to the agent (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da19242, Dec. 27, 1994). In addition, when the transferee entrusted with the authority to notify the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment by the assignee, the transferee and the agent shall indicate the transferor pursuant to Article 114(1) of the Civil Act without the present title of the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the assignment to the obligor, even if the assignee were aware of the assignment to the assignment to the transferee.

The Plaintiff appears to have been delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims by Defendant BBC (see Article 6 of the Agreement on the Assignment of Claims). Furthermore, the following circumstances are revealed: (a) although the Plaintiff did not directly indicate that the instant notification of the assignment of claims was redDD; (b) the instant notification of the assignment of claims was attached to the instant notification of the assignment of claims; (c) Defendant BB precision was affixed to the instant notification of the assignment of claims; and (d) whether the instant notification of the assignment of claims was delegated with the authority to notify the Plaintiff of the assignment of claims; and (e) the instant notification of the assignment of claims was relatively easy for the Plaintiff to confirm whether the instant notification of the assignment of claims was delegated to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, in light of the fact that the Plaintiff’s notification of the assignment of claims by BBC and the instant notification of the assignment of claims by BBC would not have been delegated to the Plaintiff at the time of the instant notification of the assignment of claims by BBC, the Plaintiff’s allegation that the instant notification of the assignment of claims should not be known to the Plaintiff’s obligee.

In light of the above legal principles, according to the above recognition facts, the notice of assignment of claims with the fixed date with respect to the plaintiff CCC who represented the defendant BB precision reaches CCC prior to the original copy of the provisional seizure or the notification of seizure of the above defendants. As so determined in the above, the OOOO which does not have the effect of the prohibition of disposal of each claim provisional seizure with priority over the plaintiff among the claims of this case shall be deemed to have been transferred to the plaintiff. Thus, the above defendants

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for payment of OOO won among the deposit money of this case shall be deemed to have accrued to the plaintiff, and there is a benefit of confirmation. Thus, each claim against the defendants of this case shall be accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.