There is a claim for payment of deposit against the defendant

Since the Plaintiff received the obligation, the instant deposit is alleged to be paid to the Plaintiff, but the materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be acknowledged.

Article 154 of the Enforcement Decree

2013 Gaz. 14676 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

AAAA Stock Company

Republic of Korea Overseas

November 26, 2013

February 11, 2014

1. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant BB, CCC Limited, DD Limited, and Korea is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs between the Plaintiff, Defendant BB, CCC Limited, DD Limited, and Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The defendants confirm that the plaintiff has the right to deposit money stated in the attached list.

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant EEE Co., Ltd. jointly received orders from Nonparty FFFFF Co., Ltd. to jointly receive building stones works in the areas Aa-8, 9 and integrated text building stones, but the Plaintiff independently performed the construction works with the approval of FFF, and completed it on August 201.

B. However, as per its original contract, one half of the construction cost is paid directly by the Plaintiff from FF, and one half of the remainder (including 00,000,000,000 additional taxes) is paid from FF, including the origin of external stone works, among new construction works, for which Defendant EE receives an order from FF, and the Plaintiff was paid from Defendant EEE as a sewage supplier of Defendant EEE.

C. The Plaintiff requested the payment of the above construction price to Defendant EEE, but Defendant EEE did not pay it. On February 10, 2012, the Plaintiff prepared a written consent of direct payment requesting FF to pay the Plaintiff the amount stated in the above paragraph (2).

D. The Plaintiff presented a written statement of the above direct payment to the FFF theory, and the FF concurrently accepted the above obligation for construction payment that Defendant EEE shall pay to the Plaintiff.

E. The Plaintiff did not pay the construction cost to the Plaintiff even though the FF accepted Defendant EE’s obligation for the construction cost, and Defendant EEE claimed the payment of the construction cost to Defendant EE, and Defendant EE paid KRW 00 million to the Plaintiff.

F. Meanwhile, on February 28, 2013, FF served as the Plaintiff or Defendant EEE, and, on the claim for construction cost of KRW 00,000,000 paid by Defendant EEF from FF, the FF served as Defendant BB, CCC Limited Corporation, DD Limited Company, provisional attachment decision received by the Republic of Korea, seizure and collection order, and seizure order based on the disposition on default was served. The FF served on the Plaintiff for the direct claim for construction cost based on the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, but it is impossible to identify the Plaintiff as to whether the Plaintiff had a direct claim under the above Act. Thus, the FF made a mixed deposit of KRW 00,000 at the Seoul East Eastern District Court Decision 00,000 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

G. Therefore, 00,000,000 won out of the money deposited by the FFF was to be paid to the Plaintiff according to the FF’s assumption of obligations by the FF. Therefore, the Plaintiff has the right to claim for payment of the said money out of the instant deposit.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant BB, CCC Limited, DD Limited, and Korea

A. In light of the purport of the whole pleadings as to the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 6 above, the assertion under the above paragraph (1) above

A. (b)(c)(f) is recognized in the office.

B. The Plaintiff asserts that, by an agreement between the Plaintiff and Defendant EE or FF three parties, the FF made a contract to assume the obligation of Defendant EEF with the assumption of the obligation of the payment of the contract. The agreement to assume the obligation by agreement between the obligee, the obligee, the obligor, and the third parties on the assumption of the obligation requires the declaration of intent to accept the obligation of the obligor, and the declaration of intent that the obligee and the obligor agree to the assumption of the obligation is consistent (or is consistent with the declaration of intent of the obligee and the obligor requesting the assumption of the obligation and the declaration of consent of the obligor), it is insufficient to deem that Defendant EEF, the obligor, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise. Moreover, according to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 5 and 6, it is difficult to acknowledge that the FF consented to the Plaintiff’s request to accept the obligation of the FF due to the lack of direct consent of the Plaintiff’s submission of the contract price, Defendant EEF’s refusal to accept the said request without the Plaintiff’s direct consent of the payment of the work price.

C. The plaintiff asserts that he has the right to claim the construction price directly to the FF pursuant to Article 14 (1) 2 of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act. However, the direct claim under the above provision occurs when the ordering person agrees to pay the subcontract price directly to the subcontractor, and it is difficult to view that there was an agreement between the plaintiff, defendant EEE, FF3 to pay the construction price directly to the subcontractor. Thus, the plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

D. Next, the Plaintiff is the Plaintiff and Defendant EEEE, and Defendant EEE does not dispute the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of deposit money, the Plaintiff asserts that the other Defendants, other than the deposited parties, are not entitled to dispute. However, in mixed deposit, the execution creditor is not a person to whom the deposit is made, but there is a legal interest in dispute as to whom the claim for payment of deposit belongs among the deposited parties. In addition, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendants is deemed to have the aforementioned interest. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is rejected.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the claims against Defendant BB, CCC Limited, DD Limited, and Korea are dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.