If a debtor has done a juristic act aimed at a property right with the knowledge that such act would prejudice the creditor, it is only possible to file a claim with the court for the revocation of such fraudulent act.

Where an obligor has done a juristic act aimed at a property right with the knowledge that such act would prejudice the obligee, the obligee may file a claim with the court for the revocation of the fraudulent act, but may not claim it as an attack and defense method in a lawsuit.

National Tax Collection Act

2012 Confirmation of a person entitled to deposit money 82099

Maximum XX

SP et al.

December 7, 2012

January 4, 2013

1. On November 29, 201, the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency confirms that the right to claim for payment of deposit money of KRW 000 deposited by gold 23911 at the Seoul Central District Court in 2011 is the Plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The Korea Occupational Safety and Health Institute affiliated with the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”) entered into a contract with the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Institute (hereinafter referred to as the “Industrial Safety and Health Institute”) from March 14, 201 to November 30, 201; the research period from March 14, 2011 to October 31, 201; and the consignment research service contract (hereinafter referred to as the “instant service contract”) on the investigation into the cause of industrial accidents in 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the “investigation”) with the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Company”) entered into a contract with the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (Article 8(1)); if the Defendant Company transferred the rights and obligations under the above contract to a third party without approval of the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency, the Plaintiff notified the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency of the transfer of the claim to the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency from March 14, 2011 to October 31, 2010.

With respect to the remainder of the service cost under the instant service contract, the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency (Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency) designated the deposited person as the Defendant Company or the Plaintiff on November 29, 201, based on Articles 248(1) and 291 of the Civil Execution Act, and the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, based on which the court deposited KRW 000 as 23911 of this Court (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”).

(The following table omitted):

[Evidence] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-7 evidence (including branch numbers for Gap 1 and 2) and the purport of the whole pleadings (the defendant company shall be deemed to have been led to confession)

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

In a case where the assignment of claims, provisional seizure, and seizure are concurrent with the same claim, the order is determined by the arrival of notification of the assignment of claims with a fixed date and by the prior notification of the provisional seizure and seizure order. As seen earlier, the notification of the assignment of claims of this case reaches the Korea Occupational Safety and Health Agency more than the notification of the provisional seizure by Defendant KimA, the largest BB, and the notification of the provisional seizure and seizure order by the Defendant’s Republic of Korea. Thus, barring any special circumstance, the deposit

In addition, as in the instant case, in the case of a deposit with a relative uncertainty designated by the transferor and the transferee as the recipient of the deposit and a mixed deposit with an execution deposit on the grounds of competition between seizure, the deposit shall be valid, and a written consent attached by the transferor, the provisional seizure authority, etc. for the deposit withdrawal or a final and conclusive judgment on the confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposit against the transferor, the holder of the right to request the return of deposit shall be issued. Since the Defendants are disputing the Plaintiff’s right to claim the return of deposit, the interests

B. Determination as to the defendants' assertion

1) Defenses of special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims

Defendant KimA, LB, and Korea set up a defense to the effect that the assignment of claims in this case violates the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims in this case, and that the Plaintiff received the claim with the knowledge of such special agreement. The assignee’s bad faith or gross negligence must be asserted and proved by the person who intends to set up against the assignee with the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5336, 5343, Jan. 24, 2003).

As seen earlier, the instant service contract does not expressly stipulate a special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claims, and only stipulates that the Defendant Company may cancel or terminate the contract in cases where it transfers the rights and obligations under the said contract to a third party without approval of the Industrial Safety and Health Research Institute. The Industrial Safety and Health Research Institute deposited all the service charges remaining without cancelling or terminating the instant service contract on the ground of the transfer of claims by the Defendant Company. No evidence exists to deem that the Plaintiff was in bad faith or gross negligence with regard to the said special agreement at the time of the transfer of claims. Accordingly

2) Claim for revocation of fraudulent act

Defendant KimA, LB, and Korea asserted that the assignment of claims in this case constitutes a fraudulent act as it was concluded with the knowledge that the assignment of claims in this case would prejudice other obligees. However, in case where the obligor performed a legal act for the purpose of property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the obligee can file a claim with the court for revocation of the fraudulent act, and cannot be asserted as a means of attack and defense in the lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da8393, Jul. 25, 1995). Since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the assignment of claims in this case is a fraudulent act, this assertion is without merit.

3) Claim for preferential payment

Defendant KimA, LB asserts to the effect that they have preferential rights to payment on the instant deposit money, since they received research services from the Defendant Company to investigate the cause of industrial accidents under the instant service contract, they are wages creditors for the Defendant Company, or research fees, which are service fees under the instant service contract, cannot be used for any purpose other than for the purpose of conducting research, and thus, they could not use it for any purpose other than for the purpose of conducting research.

However, according to the statements in Eul 2 to 8, Eul 1 to 12, the above defendants can be acknowledged as having been conducting an investigation by entering into a research service contract with the defendant company, and the above defendants cannot be deemed as a worker who provided labor under the employment of the defendant company. Although the service contract of this case specified the use of research funds in the above facts, it cannot be asserted against the assignee of the claim who is a third party with these circumstances. Thus, this assertion cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all of the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants are accepted.