A collective investment business entity is in a position to substantially manage the investment trust property and is in a position to receive assignment of claims or attachment notice.

A collective investment business entity under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act is a truster, a truster, and a truster. However, a collective investment business entity is in a position to receive notice of assignment of claims or notification of seizure in a position to substantially manage the

2012 Confirmation of claims for payment of deposit money 14265

YellowAAA

BBBC 2 others

2013.06.26

2013.07.19

1. On September 28, 2012, between the Plaintiff, Defendant BBC Co., Ltd, andCC Industry Co., Ltd., Daehan, Inc., confirmed that: (a) on September 28, 2012, 200 won deposited by the Seoul Western District Court No. 5917, Seoul Western District Court, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of deposit amount of KRW 00

2. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the parts arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant BBC, andCC industry, shall be borne by the said Defendants, and the parts arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

(2) On September 28, 2012, 200 won deposited by the Seoul Western District Court No. 5917 on September 28, 2012, the Seoul Western District Court confirmed that the claim for payment of deposit amount of KRW 000 is against the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea.

1. Basic facts

A. EEGG Fund Asset Management Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "EG") under the Financial Investment Services and Capital Markets Act (hereinafter referred to as "Capital Markets Act") has entrusted the investment and operation of FGG private real estate investment trust 14 (hereinafter referred to as "the fund of this case"), a collective investment scheme, to D Bank, which is a trust company, and D Bank acquired the ownership of the OG building in Gangnam-gu Seoul, an asset subject to investment in accordance with the direction of EEG. (b) the Plaintiff is a person engaged in the opening and repair construction business in the name of "H industry," and the Plaintiff has been implementing part of the OG fireproof construction and supplementary construction work (hereinafter referred to as "construction work") from May 23, 2012 to June 30, 2012.

o The conclusion of an asset entrustment management contract for O building between EEG and II EF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "II") on August 31, 2009

o On April 30, 2012, Defendant BBC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BBC”) submits a written estimate for construction to II.

o On May 3, 2012, OEG on May 3, 2012, 199: (a) reporting on the estimates of construction and requesting approval from EEG to ? EGG on May 15, 2012, giving notice of approval from the Corporation to Defendant BBBC and II EGC.

o A contract for construction work between Defendant BBBC on May 2, 2012 (including 000 won and value added tax; hereinafter the same shall apply)

o On May 22, 2012, the conclusion of a subcontract for part of the construction between Defendant BBC and the Plaintiff (price 000 won)

C. The Plaintiff, DefendantCC Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DefendantCC industry”), and Korea (kk Tax Office), both of Defendant BBC’s creditors, and Defendant BBBC’s construction price claims, were notified of each seizure or transfer in the following order:

D. In accordance with the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, DB deposited KRW 000 of the official bond claim of Defendant BBC as the depositee of the Plaintiff and the Defendants on September 28, 2012, 2012, the Seoul Western District Court Decision 5917, Seoul Western District Court, as the depositee of the Plaintiff and the Defendants, on September 28, 2012.

[Based on Recognition] Unstrifed Facts, Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4, the whole purport of the pleading

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant BBC

(a) Description of the claim;

The Plaintiff acquired the claim for the payment of the construction cost from Defendant BBC, and DB deposited the construction cost as described in paragraph (d) of Article 1, and among them, sought confirmation that the claim for payment of the deposit is the Plaintiff.

(b) Judgment deeming confession;

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

3. Determination as to the claim against DefendantCC industry

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be recognized by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the descriptions in the foregoing, or in Gap evidence 1, 2, and 4.

(1) On July 2, 2012, a notice given by the Plaintiff to the transferee of each assignment of claim (hereinafter referred to as “the notice of the Plaintiff’s assignment”) was served on July 2, 2012 on the notice that the DefendantCC industry is the assignee (hereinafter referred to as “DefendantCC industry assignment notice”).

(2) The Plaintiff’s assignment notice was sent by content-certified mail with a fixed date fixed.

(3) According to the construction contract between Section II and Section BBC, the contractor shall have the obligation to receive the notification or to consult with the contractor (Article 4 Section 2).

(4) The Plaintiff’s assignment notification was made in the name of Defendant BBC, and the Plaintiff transferred all progress payments, etc. incurred at the site of waterproof and Supplementary Work in OO building, to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination

In the case of a double transfer of claim, the heat between the transferee is determined by the prior date of the date of receipt of the notice of transfer with the fixed date or of acceptance with the fixed date with the debtor. According to the above facts, according to the construction contract with the defendant BBC, and the plaintiff's notification of transfer of claim for construction cost is included in the notification of transfer of claim for construction cost. Since the plaintiff's notification of assignment of claim with the fixed date reaches II II prior to the notification of assignment of claim for the DefendantCC industry, the plaintiff's assertion is reasonable, and as long as the defendant CCC industry disputes over the attribution of the right to claim for payment of deposit money, the benefit of confirmation is recognized.

4. Determination on the claim against Defendant Republic of Korea

(a) Facts of recognition;

The following facts may be acknowledged by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to the statements in Gap evidence No. 2.

(1) On June 27, 2012, prior to the Plaintiff’s notification of the assignment of claims regarding Defendant BBC’s claim for construction cost, Defendant Korea’s notification of the attachment of claims reaches ESG.

(2) In the construction contract between Section II and Defendant BBC, Section II entered into a construction contract on behalf of the Fund (HIV) on behalf of the Fund, and Section II directly pays the construction cost to BBC, and the tax invoice for the construction cost also provides that the Fund shall be delivered to the Fund, and the substantial obligation for the payment of the construction cost shall be borne by the Fund (Article 6).

B. Determination

(1) The legal principles on dual transfer of claims as seen earlier likewise apply to cases where a person who executed attachment order with respect to the same claim as that of the assignee. According to Article 80(1) of the Capital Markets Act, the collective investment business entity of an investment trust must give the trust business entity instructions necessary for the acquisition, disposal, etc. of assets for investment to the trust business entity, and the trust business entity must acquire, dispose of assets for investment in accordance with the instructions, and thus, the entity is a trust business entity. On the other hand, EEG is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is the entity that is responsible for the performance of the assets for investment in this case, and EEGG provides for the entity that is the entity that is the collective investment business entity that is the entity that is responsible for the acquisition, disposal, etc. of the assets for investment in this case. According to the above recognition facts, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this is without merit.

(2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff had priority over the claim for the payment of the subcontract price since the Plaintiff claimed the OO for the direct payment of the subcontract price around June 20, 2012 prior to the notification of the attachment of the Defendant’s claims by the Republic of Korea. It is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had the authority to receive the request for the direct payment of the subcontract price from OO only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise. In order to request the direct payment of the subcontract price, the above evidence is insufficient to acknowledge that there was such a reason as prescribed in Article 14(1) of the Fair Transactions in Subcontracting Act, and there is no other evidence to prove that there was no other reason. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is difficult to accept without examining the remaining issues.

5. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant BBC andCC industry is well-grounded, and the defendant's claim against the Republic of Korea is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.