If the obligor transfers his bonds and satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims, it shall not be effective even if the obligee seizes the transferred bonds.

If a debtor satisfies the requirements for setting up against the transfer of the claim by a notice, etc. with a fixed date after transferring the claim subject to attachment, it shall not be effective even if other creditors of the debtor have seized or provisionally seized the transferred claim.

Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

2014da 5194809 Confirmation of a claim for payment of deposit money

Is 00

west 00 et al.

November 13, 2014

oly 2, 2015

1. It is confirmed that construction company 00 was the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of deposit money for KRW 39,494,426, which was deposited by Suwon-nam Branch of the Suwon District Court for the year 2012 Geumnam Branch on September 26, 2012.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of premise;

A. 00 Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “00 Construction”) was the contractor of the 00 plenary session construction, and 00 p.m. was the contractor of the said construction from 00 p.m. to the 00 p.m., the part of the said construction, and the Plaintiff re-issued part of the construction from 00 p.m.

B. On April 12, 2012, 00 tons transferred KRW 39,60,000 among the above tin construction price claim for 00 metric tons to the Plaintiff, and sent a certificate of the content of the assignment of claims, and the above content certification reached April 13, 2012. The 00 tons reached the construction on April 13, 2012. Around April 2012, 200 tons transferred KRW 43,543,991 out of the construction price claim to the 00 building (hereinafter “0 building stones”) and notified the Plaintiff of the transfer in writing with a fixed date. The above notification reached the construction on April 17, 2012.

D. 00 Construction: (a) on September 26, 2012, by reason of the assignment of assignment, seizure, etc., deposited KRW 39,494,426 of the above stone construction cost by mixing KRW 39,426 of the said stone construction cost with a 00 ton or transferee, or the Plaintiff or 00 stone, the deposited person, as a transferor, under the Sung-nam Branch of the Suwon District Court in 2012, by reason of gold No. 3779, Sept. 26, 2012 (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”). (b) Defendant 00, U.S., on the ground that the said stone construction claim was transferred, seized, etc., the provisional attachment creditor, Defendant U.S. (hereinafter “Defendant 00”), Defendant 00 Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant 00”)

[Ground for Recognition]: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-9 evidence (including more than one number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant 00,00

(a) Description of the claim;

After the Plaintiff’s notice of assignment of claim 00 tons of the Plaintiff’s transfer of claim reaches the construction on April 13, 2012 and meeting the requisite for setting up against the assignment of claim, Defendant 00, 00,000 each made a seizure and assignment order, provisional seizure order, and provisional seizure order. Therefore, the above order and decision are invalid, and thus, the Plaintiff is able to confirm that the Plaintiff has a claim for payment of the deposit deposited by 00 construction works.

(b) Articles 208(3)2 and 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act of the judgment based on the recommendation of confession;

3. Determination on Defendant U.S. 00 and Korea’s claim

A. Legal doctrine

If a debtor satisfies the requirements for setting up against the assignment of claims by notification, etc. with a fixed date after transferring the claims subject to seizure or provisional seizure, even if another creditor of the debtor seizes or provisional seizure on the transferred claims, the claims subject to seizure or provisional seizure have no effect as seizure or provisional seizure because they do not have any existing claims at the time of the seizure or provisional seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da57213, 5720, Oct. 28, 2010). In addition, in light of the purport of mixed deposit, as well as in relation to other persons under deposit, documents evidencing the existence of the right to claim for the withdrawal of deposited claims are prepared and submitted in relation to the enforcement creditor, so there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the right to claim for the withdrawal of deposited claims against the execution creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012). b.

(1) According to the premise facts, the notification of the assignment of claims to 00 metric tons of the Plaintiff’s transfer of claims reaches 00 construction on April 13, 2012. Since the notification of the assignment of claims to 00 metric tons of the Plaintiff’s transfer to the provisional attachment or the main attachment of Defendant U20 after that notification, the seizure and collection order transferred to the provisional attachment or the main attachment of Defendant U20, and as long as there were the seizure of the Defendant Republic of Korea, the above provisional attachment, seizure, collection, and seizure are all effective in light of the legal principles as seen earlier. Thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim payment of the instant deposit, and as the execution creditor of the Republic of Korea,

B. Shell, Defendant U.S.0 asserts that the assignment of claims to the Plaintiff by Bobston was made for the purpose of fraudulent act or evasion of obligations, and that the said assignment of claims is not effective by itself, but must be premised on revocation. The revocation of a fraudulent act is only possible to file a lawsuit with a court, and cannot be asserted as a means of attack and defense in a lawsuit (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da4859, 48605, Mar. 13, 1998). Meanwhile, there is no evidence to deem that it was made for the purpose of evasion of obligations, and therefore, Defendant U.S.0’s assertion is without merit without any need to further examine.

Secondly, Defendant Republic of Korea argues to the effect that factual relations concerning the assignment of claims by the Plaintiff, i.e., the existence of claims and the reason why the claims are transferred, but Defendant Republic of Korea did not accept Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion on the fact that 00 tons of tin construction work claims were owned as a subcontractor of 00 construction, and that 00 tons of tin construction works claims were transferred to the Plaintiff for the repayment of obligations to the Plaintiff. However, the Plaintiff is bound to be deemed as a legitimate transferee of the above tin construction work claims, and there is no counter-proof against this.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.