As the notification of the assignment of claims is received by the debtor as soon as the notification of the assignment of claims reaches the garnishee is more rapid than the date of delivery.

The order between the assignee of the claim and the executor of the provisional seizure or seizure order with respect to the same claim is determined by the date when the notice of assignment of claim with a fixed date reaches the debtor, and by the date when the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure or seizure order reaches the garnishee.

Seoul Central District Court 2013Kadan340105

AA Capital Capital Co., Ltd.

Republic of Korea and 2

October 21, 2014

March 31, 2015

1. The Defendants confirmed on March 3, 2009 that ○ Metal Co., Ltd. deposited with 337,585,493 Won from 44,868,892 Won, which was deposited with 33776,00, Seoul Central District Court in 2009, the Plaintiff had the right to claim the payment of KRW 37,585,493.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant BBCex

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Applicable provisions of Acts: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 150 (3) and (1) of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant Korea Tech and Korea

(a) Facts of recognition;

(1) On November 11, 2008, the Plaintiff acquired the claim of KRW 37,580,000 from ○ Metal Industries Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Metal”) on ○○ Heavy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○ Metal”), and received delegation from the transferor on November 12, 2008, sent the assignment of claim under the name of the transferor to ○ Metal by way of content-certified mail (hereinafter referred to as “the instant assignment of claim”). (ii) DefendantCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CC”) on November 26, 2008, the claim of KRW 227,304,050 on ○ Heavy Co., Ltd. as the claim claim for provisional attachment, and filed an application for provisional attachment order of KRW 60,00,000 on ○ Heavy Heavy Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○ Heavy”) with the claim for the provisional attachment order of KRW 227,300,008.

3) On January 15, 2009, 2009, on the ground that ○○ Industries did not pay national taxes of KRW 39,349,59,00, the head of Pyeongtaek District Tax Office of the Republic of Korea attached a claim for the price of goods on ○ Metal’s ○○ Metal, but released the attachment on the ground that the said date was not delinquent.

4) On March 3, 2009, ○ Metal had a dispute over the validity of the instant notice of assignment of claims. After the notice of assignment of claims in this case, Defendant BBCT Co., Ltd., andCCCCCC, after being served with a provisional attachment decision, and on the grounds that there was a seizure by Defendant Republic of Korea, the Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 44,868,892 by mixing KRW 3376 in 209.

B. Determination

1) The heating between the assignee of the claim and the executor of the provisional seizure or seizure order with respect to the same claim is determined by the date when the notice of assignment of claim with a fixed date reaches the obligor, and by the date when the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure or seizure order reaches the garnishee (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994).

2) According to the above facts, it is prior to the provisional attachment of DefendantCCcon and the date of seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea. As such, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim for payment of KRW 37,585,493 out of the instant deposit, and the transferee of one of the deposited parties is entitled to pay the deposit only with the written consent attached to the other deposited parties and the provisional seizure creditors, etc.’ seal impression or with the final judgment in favor of the confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit. Thus, the Plaintiff is also entitled to seek confirmation.

As to this, DefendantCC did not have validity since the notification of the assignment of claims was made by the Plaintiff, the assignee, but the fact that the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of claims by the Plaintiff is recognized as above. In light of the fact that the notification of the transfer of claims is attached to the notification of the transfer of claims sent by the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to view that it could be easily confirmed that the notification of the transfer of claims was made by the legitimate authorization of the transferor, even from the standpoint of ○ Metal, the debtor, in view of the fact that the notification of the transfer of claims

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is justified, and it is decided to accept it.