Since the notice of assignment and the order of seizure are served simultaneously, there is a duty to settle in installments.

Since the decision of transfer and seizure of claims was served simultaneously, there is no heat between the plaintiff and the defendant in the Republic of Korea, and the sum of the amount of transferred claims and the amount of seized claims exceeds the amount of claims against the non-party corporation, the plaintiff and the defendant are liable to settle the deposit amount in proportion to the amount of claims transferred and seized.

2012 Confirmation of a claim for payment of deposit money

PostalAA

BB et al.

October 9, 2012

October 30, 2012

1. On December 29, 201, the non-party AA council confirmed that the claim for payment of deposit amount of KRW 000 out of KRW 000 deposited by the Seoul East Eastern District Court No. 5730 on December 29, 201 was against the Plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 1, 2011, Defendant BB (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Company”) transferred 000 won service payment claim to the Plaintiff to the Nonparty, a non-party corporation, a non-party corporation, (hereinafter referred to as “non-party corporation”) and notified the transfer to the non-party corporation by content-certified mail, and the above notification reached the non-party corporation on December 2, 201.

B. On November 29, 2011, when the Defendant Company defaulted on the value-added tax of KRW 000.

On December 2, 2011, an amount equivalent to KRW 00 of the instant claims was seized, and the attachment decision was delivered to a non-party corporation along with a notice of assignment of claims.

C. On December 29, 201, the Seoul Eastern District Court deposited KRW 000 on the basis of Article 487 of the Civil Act (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the ground that the notice of assignment of claims and the decision of seizure was received at the same time, and that the creditor cannot be identified (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

[Based on Recognition] The purport of the entire entries and arguments in Gap, Gap's 1 to 4, Eul's 7 (including household numbers), Eul's 1, and Eul's 2

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The deposit is made under the responsibility and judgment of the depositor, and the depositor may select the deposit for repayment, the execution, or the mixed deposit due to driving away from his own will. In addition, whether the depositor has made any kind of deposit or not shall be determined by comprehensively and reasonably considering whether the deposited person is designated, the statutory provisions that provide the basis for the deposit, and the facts of the cause of the deposit (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076 Decided January 12, 2012). In full view of the above facts, it is reasonable to view the deposit of this case as a mixed deposit with the nature of the execution as well as the repayment deposit.

B. Where the claims are transferred double, the heat between the assignee shall not be determined by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, and that is, by the prior date of the obligor's recognition of the assignment of claims, that is, by the notification of the transfer with the fixed date, that is, by the prior date of the acceptance of the obligor or that of the notification of the transfer with the fixed date, that arrives at the obligor, and these legal principles also apply when the notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date and the notification of the provisional seizure order between the obligor and the third obligor (in the case of the assignment of claims, between the obligor), shall be determined by the priority after the arrival of the original notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date and the notification of the provisional seizure order to the third obligor (in the case of the assignment of claims, between the obligor). In addition, even if the notification of the assignment of claims, provisional seizure or seizure order are delivered to the third obligor and there is no heat between them, the transferee, and if so, the total amount of the claims in this case shall be 000 and 20.

C. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that, among the instant deposit money, the right to claim for payment of deposit deposit amounting to KRW 000 ( KRW 000 KRW x000) belongs to the Plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. In light of the following, Defendant Republic of Korea, and Defendant Company received notice of attachment of claims on November 29, 201, and transferred the instant claims to the Plaintiff on December 1, 2011, and the Plaintiff asserted that the instant claims were transferred to the Defendant Company for payment in kind on March 21, 2011, but the Plaintiff did not submit financial data on KRW 000 as to the loan, although it claimed that the instant claims were transferred to the Defendant Company for payment in kind, the instant claims are asserted to the effect that the instant claims are invalid because the instant claims constitute false conspiracy.

B. Therefore, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the 1st and 2nd evidence, the claims in this case are seized on November 29, 201 on the same day on the grounds that the head of the Gangnam District Tax Office was delinquent in value-added tax 000 won on November 29, 201, and the fact that the plaintiff submitted only the loan certificate and the certificate of business profit distribution (Evidence 6) as evidence corresponding to the loan claim in 00 won as evidence, and the fact that the defendant company transferred the claims in this case to the plaintiff on December 1, 2011 is the same as mentioned above, but the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the assignment of claims in this case constitutes a false agreement, and there is no other evidence to support this, and the defense in the defendant's Republic of Korea is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the right to claim payment of 00 won out of the deposited money of this case shall be deemed to be the plaintiff, and as long as the defendant Republic of Korea is disputing this, and the defendant company is designated as the person to whom the deposited money was deposited, and the plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted in its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.