Confirmation of the claimant for payment of deposit money

A creditor who has transferred a claim for construction price to a third party shall be notified of the transfer of claim to the debtor and subsequent to the receipt of such notification, the creditor who seized or seized the claim for construction price may not oppose it.

Article 42 of the National Tax Collection Act: Effect of attachment of claims

1. On April 13, 2006, between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is confirmed that ○○○○ District Court deposited 132,642,356 won of the money deposited by ○○○○○○○○○○ in 2006, which was the Plaintiff’s right to claim a payment of KRW 64,44 million.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 9, 2001, Defendant Company ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) had a claim for payment of KRW 132,069,050,050, which deducts the liquidated damages from the proceeds of the electrical construction performed after being awarded a contract for the electrical construction for the comprehensive disposal facilities of agricultural and fishing villages by ○○○○○ Military Waste Management Corporation (hereinafter “Defendant Company”). At the time of the said contract, Defendant Company and ○○○○○ agreed that the Defendant Company may not transfer the said claim for the construction cost to a third party, except for the purpose

B. On April 21, 2004, Defendant Company transferred 64,440,000 won of the above claim for construction price to the Plaintiff, and notified ○○○ on April 24, 2004 of the assignment of the above claim.

C. Since July 7, 2004, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○.

D. On April 13, 2006, 132,642,356 won, including the above construction cost of KRW 132,069,050 and interest of KRW 573,306, on the ground that the attachment, provisional attachment, etc. conflict with a non-assignment agreement, ○○○○○○ District Court deposited the repayment of the Plaintiff, the assignee of the claim, who is the Defendant Company and the assignee of the claim, as the assignee of the claim, as the assignee of the claim, and made a mixed deposit of the execution deposit with the execution creditor as the execution creditor, in 2006.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap-one to five grounds, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. A claim against Defendant Company and Defendant ○○○○ Transport Co., Ltd., Park ○○○○○○○○, Ansan○, Kim Ho-Gyeong, Cho Jong-Gyeong, Cho Jong-won, Cho Jong-won, Nam-ri, a long-term, red, red, Park Young-young, creation, ○○○○, Kim Jae-in, and realizing the regions

(a) Description of the claim;

The plaintiff's claim for withdrawal of KRW 64 million out of the above deposit shall be confirmed.

(b) Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Claim against Defendant Kimyang-○ and Korea

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

According to the above facts, 64,40,000 won out of the above construction cost claim against the defendant company ○○○-gun was legitimately transferred to the plaintiff, and as long as the plaintiff's notice of assignment of claims with the fixed date reaches ○○○-gun prior to the decision of seizure of claims in the defendant Kimyang and the Republic of Korea, the plaintiff may oppose the above defendants as the assignment of claims. Thus, the plaintiff may oppose the above defendants. Thus, the claim for payment of 64,440,000 won out of the above deposit amount is the plaintiff and there is a benefit to seek confirmation

B. Determination as to the assertion of Defendant Kimyang-○ and Korea

(1) Defendant Kimyang-○, and the Republic of Korea: (a) the Defendant Company transferred the claims to the Plaintiff in violation of a non-assignment agreement with ○○ Military; and (b) the Plaintiff alleged that the assignment of claims is null and void since it knew or did not know by gross negligence that there was a non-assignment agreement; (c) thus, the prohibition against the assignment of claims by the party’s expression of intent may be set up against the prohibition against the assignment of claims in a case where a third party was gross negligence on the part of the third party, not only in bad faith but also in a case where the third party was not aware of the prohibition against the assignment of claims. However, the third party’s bad faith or gross negligence must be asserted and proved by the person who seeks to set up against the assignee with the non-assignment agreement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 9Da834, Dec. 28, 199);

(2) Defendant Kimyang-dong, as the Defendant Company transferred its claim to the Plaintiff to repay the obligation owed to the Plaintiff by the husband of representative director rather than the Plaintiff, Defendant Kimyang-dong, alleged that it cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. However, even if the above assertion is true, it does not change the validity of the assignment of claim. Thus, the above assertion cannot

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.