The plaintiff is entitled to claim the payment of deposit money for the deposit because the deposit constitutes a constructive confession.

In the case of Defendant Republic of Korea, it is recognized that the Plaintiff did not clearly dispute the facts alleged by the Plaintiff in light of the content of the reply, and the Plaintiff and the said Defendants have the right to claim the payment of deposit money.

2011 Ghana 347256 Deposit Withdrawal Claim

XX

SP et al.

April 18, 2012

May 16, 2012

1. The Defendants confirm that the Plaintiff has the right to claim payment of deposit money for KRW 000 deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 19343 on December 5, 2008.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant OO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant OO”) had a claim equivalent to KRW 00 against Defendant △△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant △△”), but on April 24, 2006, the agreement was concluded that the claim amounting to KRW 000 against Defendant △△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant claim”) was transferred from Defendant △△ on the condition that the promissory notes (e.g., par value KRW 00, maturity KRW 2, 2006) issued by Defendant △ (e.g., maturity KRW 00, maturity KRW 00, and July 23, 2006) are exchanged with other promissory notes (e.g., maturity KRW 00, KRW 00 against Defendant △△ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant claim”).

B. According to the bond acquisition agreement on this issue (A evidence 6-2), the defendant △△ without delay upon the conclusion of this agreement, and upon the completion of the claim collection, the defendant △△ did not extinguish the claim of the defendant O until it is appropriated for repayment, and the defendant △△ does not discharge the obligation of the defendant △△.

C. On April 26, 2006, DefendantO notified the transfer of the right to claim of this case to Korea, etc. under the name of Defendant △△ (aa’s official seal imprinted on the notice of assignment of claim, and attached Defendant △’s certificate of seal impression). The notice reached April 26, 2006.

D. However, on April 28, 2006, Defendant △△ notified Korea of the purport that the above notification of assignment of claims is null and void, and that notification reached XX Korea, etc. around that time. Defendant △△ reached around May 2006, Defendant 1 transferred the instant claim, etc. to the Plaintiff and notified the assignment of claims to XX Korea, and that notification reached May 16, 2006.

E. After that, on June 13, 2006, Defendant ○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant △△△”) received a provisional attachment order from the Suwon District Court 2006Kadan50496, which became final in XX Korea around that time, and reached that time. Defendant △△△ received a provisional attachment order from the same support 2007Kadan3466 on September 17, 2007, to which the provisional attachment was transferred to the provisional attachment and collection order from the same support 2007Kadan3466 on September 17, 2007.

F. Article 487 of the Civil Code and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act are Article 487 of the Civil Code and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act with respect to the instant claim on December 5, 2008 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008, and the deposited person was the Defendant Dol or Defendant O or Plaintiff and deposited KRW 000 with the deposited person as the Defendant Dol or Defendant O or Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

G. On May 7, 2010, Defendant Republic of Korea attached the right to claim a deposit payment on the basis of the wage and salary income tax and the value-added tax on Defendant Seocho-gu’s account for the instant deposit.

[Basis] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence No. 9-3), Gap evidence No. 2 and 4-1, 2, Gap evidence No. 5, Gap evidence No. 6-2, 6, 7, 9, 10, 14, Eul evidence No. 4 and 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

The notification of the assignment of claims to Defendant OO was made without being entrusted with the authority of notification of the assignment of claims from Defendant △△, the transferor, so it is not effective. The attachment of claims by Defendant △△△, the seizure of Defendant 1’s right to claim payment of the deposit of this case between the Plaintiff and Defendant △△, and subsequent attachment after the arrival of notification of the assignment of claims to Defendant △△ Korea.

Therefore, the right to claim the payment of deposit money for the instant deposit is against the Plaintiff.

3. The defendantO's assertion

On April 25, 2006, DefendantO received notification of the assignment of claims from the representative director of Dobbb, and received notification of the assignment of claims as above 1.C. The notification of the assignment of claims was served around that time. Since the Plaintiff and other Defendants were given notification of the assignment of claims, seizure, etc. after the notification of the assignment of claims, DefendantO’s right to claim payment of the deposit of this case is in DefendantO.

4. Determination on the claim against Defendant △△, △△△, and Korea

A. As to the plaintiff's assertion as to the above Paragraph 2, the above Defendants shall be deemed to have led to confession pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act (in the case of the defendant Republic of Korea, it is recognized that the facts alleged by the plaintiff were not clearly asserted in light of the content of the written reply dated March 2, 2012

B. Therefore, the Plaintiff and the Defendants are entitled to claim the payment of deposit money on the instant deposit between the Plaintiff and the Defendants.

5. Determination as to the claim against DefendantO

A. According to the evidence Nos. 6-7, 9, 10, 14, and 16-6 and 8 of the evidence Nos. 6-8, Defendant OO notified that the instant claim is transferred to XX Korea on April 26, 2006 in the name of Defendant △△, without being delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of the claim from Defendant △△. Thus, the above notification of the assignment of claim is invalid because it is made in the name of the assignee of the claim without obtaining the delegation from the transferee of the claim.

B. Therefore, the Plaintiff and Defendant OO have the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, it is clear that the Plaintiff and the Defendants have the right to claim the payment of deposit money between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and as long as Defendant OO contests this, there is a benefit of confirmation. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.