It is not possible to set up against the Defendants who issued an assignment order of claims having the same effect as the notice with a certified fixed date or attachment notice.

If the obligor disposes of the claim before the seizure of the claim becomes effective, the effect of the disposition may be set up against the obligee participating in the execution after the disposal. However, the transfer of the nominative claim can only be set up against the third party except by the notification or consent of the transfer of claim by a certificate with a fixed date.

§ 450. Requirements for setting up against assignment of nominative claim

2014 Gohap3445 Demurrer

The assignment of claims is referred to as "transfer of claims", notified LL of the assignment of claims, and August 2012.

23. The instant assignment notification reached LL.

B. Defendant HH Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd”) is the Suwon District Court of Suwon on January 10, 2013, the Suwon District Court of Suwon District.

2013. Claims with a claim amounting to KRW 28,763,140, GG and a third debtor, the debtor of which is a claim amounting to 2013.

The assignment order was issued, and the original copy of the above decision was served on LL on January 15, 2013.

C. Articles 24 and 41(1) of the National Tax Collection Act on January 22, 2013

By way, GG seized claims against GG in order to collect delinquent tax amount of the total amount of the value-added tax in arrears, etc., and the above attachment notification reached LG on January 24, 2013.

D. L is paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff who was notified of the assignment of the instant claim, and the remainder

115,513,249 won was not paid. After that, the Defendants’ assignment order and attachment notification

Upon delivery of the creditors' collection order or provisional seizure order against GG, including B, the creditors' collection order or provisional seizure order on February 7, 2014.

The distribution schedule shall be set up in 0 won each of the dividend amounts against the Defendants, and the dividend amount against the Plaintiff.

15,682,185 won shall be corrected.

B. Determination

If the debtor disposes of the bonds before the seizure of the bonds takes effect, it shall be referred to the execution after such disposal.

the effect of the disposition may be set up against the creditor, but the transfer of nominative claim shall not be effective.

A third party other than the debtor, only by notice or consent of the transfer of claims by a certificate with a certified fixed date;

The assignment of claims in this case may be set up against the claimant (Article 450(2) and (1) of the Civil Act).

There is no evidence to acknowledge that a notice or consent with a fixed date was given, and the plaintiff is the defendant.

The same effect as the notice with a certified fixed date, even if the claim in this case was transferred first to others

It is not possible to set up against the Defendants who made an assignment order or attachment notification with sufficient claims.

(c)

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit to examine the remainder of the argument.

shall not be effective.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

shall be ruled.

CH

Republic of Korea and 1

December 24, 2014

January 14, 2015

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Of the distribution schedule prepared on September 24, 2014, the above support for the distribution procedure of Defendant HH Co., Ltd., the amount of 28,763,140 won for Defendant HH Co., Ltd., the amount of 86,919,045 won for Defendant HH Co., Ltd, the amount of 86,919,045 won for Defendant Korea, and the amount of 0 won for the Plaintiff’s dividends to the Plaintiff shall be corrected to 115,682,185 won, respectively.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by adding up the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, 2-2, 2-3, 3-4, 5-1, 1-2, 1-2, 2- Eul, 1-2, and 1-2.

A. On August 22, 2012, GG Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “GGG”) transfers the Plaintiff’s sales claim (hereinafter “instant claim”) against GG’s LL Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “LL”) to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant claim”).

A person who is deposited with the Suwon District Court of Suwon District on the ground of the impossibility of being able to file a deposit with Geumwon District Court of 2014.

GG or the Plaintiff and deposited KRW 115,513,249 as repayment and enforcement, and as to the said deposit

The above support 2014 other distribution procedures began.

(e) The distribution court opened the date of distribution on September 24, 2014, and deducts the costs of enforcement from the deposit and interest accrued thereon.

Defendant Company, the holder of the first priority order among the amounts to be actually distributed 115,682,185

28,763,140 won, dividends of KRW 86,919,045 to Defendant Republic of Korea who is a seizure authority, in the second order.

The distribution schedule (hereinafter referred to as the "distribution schedule of this case") was prepared, and the plaintiff was withdrawn on the distribution date of this case.

tin. A statement of any objection against the Defendants as to all of the above dividend amounts shall be made and seven days thereafter shall be

On September 29, 2014, the instant lawsuit was filed.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

(a) A captain;

The Defendants’ assignment order or attachment notification is already made to LL when the assignment notification of claims of this case was made.

Since the claim of this case was transferred to the Plaintiff after arrival, the entire claim or the recipient was so notified.

The seizure claim shall be null and void since there is no seizure claim, and the distribution court has limited it and the defendants shall be the defendants.

The distribution schedule of this case, which is prepared by the recognition of the whole or the seizure authority, is erroneous, and therefore, this order is not issued.