There is no benefit to request confirmation against the Republic of Korea that is not the person to be deposited in the deposit case.

The defendant Republic of Korea does not attach the claim of this case, but seizes the defendant corporation's right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case after the deposit of this case, and does not have the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case, and if so, there is no benefit to claim the confirmation against the defendant Republic of Korea.

2011 Confirmation of a claim for payment of deposit money

AADalone Co., Ltd.

BBB et al.

March 14, 2012

April 18, 2012

1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant is dismissed.

2. Defendant BBBB, and Korea CC Co., Ltd. confirm that Nonparty DDD Korea Co., Ltd., on December 5, 2008, deposited by the Seoul Central District Court No. 19343, Dec. 5, 2008, the right to claim the payment of deposit money against the Plaintiff.

3. The plaintiff's claim on the defendant EEE Guarantee Fund is dismissed.

4. The costs of litigation shall be borne, respectively, by the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company BB, and between Korea CC Co., Ltd., and between the Plaintiff and the Defendant EE Guarantee Fund, and between Korea, the Plaintiff and Korea.

1. Paragraph 2 of this claim against Defendant BBB, and Korea CC Co., Ltd.

2. Claim against Defendant EEE Guarantee Fund, and Korea

The EE Guarantee Fund, and the Republic of Korea confirm that the claims for pride in the deposit described in paragraph (2) of the order are the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff had a claim amounting to KRW 00,00 on April 24, 2006 to Defendant BBB, and agreed to transfer a claim amounting to KRW 500 to Defendant BBBB BB’s claim amounting to KRW 54 business partners, with the condition that a promissory note (e.g., KRW 000, KRW 000, KRW 22 April 22, 2006, and KRW 1 Promissory note) issued on April 24, 2006 are exchanged for another promissory note (e.g., KRW 00, KRW 00, and KRW 23,006) to Defendant BBB’s claim amount from Defendant BBBBB’s 54 business partners, including this case’s claim amount. According to the Agreement, Defendant GGGG would not be entitled to KRW 20,000 upon the conclusion of this Agreement, and Defendant BGG would not be entitled to any other claim amounting to KRW 300,000,000.

B. On April 26, 2006, the Plaintiff notified the transfer of the right to claim of this case in the name of Defendant BBB to DD Korea Co., Ltd. (the Plaintiff affixed Defendant BB’s official seal affixed to Defendant BBB’s notice on the credit transfer), and the notification reached April 26, 2006.

C. However, on April 28, 2006, Defendant BB notified DD Korea Co., Ltd. that the above notification of the assignment of claims is invalid, and that such notification was reached around that time, and around May 2006, Defendant EEE Guarantee Fund transferred the instant claims, etc. to Defendant EEE Guarantee Fund and notified the transfer of claims to Defendant DDD Korea Co., Ltd., and that notification was reached on May 16, 2006. Thereafter, Defendant CC Co., Ltd received a collection order on September 17, 2007 from Suwon District Court Sungnam Branch Branch Branch Branch 2007 Ga3466, which received the provisional seizure and collection order on September 17, 2007 from the Defendant Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd. to the Korea Co., Ltd., Ltd., which received the provisional seizure and collection order on September 17, 2007;

D. Ultimately, with respect to the instant claim on December 5, 2008, DDD Korea Co., Ltd deposited KRW 000 as the Defendant GGGG or the Plaintiff or Defendant EEE Guarantee Fund on the basis of the Seoul Central District Court No. 19343 in 2008 and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act (the deposit of the third obligor’s debt amount) (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”).

E. On May 7, 2010, Defendant Korea seized Defendant GGGG’s right to claim for payment of the deposit money against the instant deposit on the basis of earned income tax and value added tax on Defendant BBB.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts that there is no dispute between the parties, evidence A1 through A8, and evidence B-3, as the whole, the purport of the argument

2. The plaintiff's assertion

On April 25, 2006, the plaintiff, the representative director of the defendant BBB, who was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of the assignment of claims

A. Defendant Republic of Korea has a defense before the proposal that there is no benefit to confirm the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant Republic of Korea, and as seen above, Defendant Republic of Korea did not have the right to claim for confirmation against Defendant Republic of Korea, but attached Defendant BB’s right to claim for payment of the instant deposit after the deposit of this case, and if so, Defendant Republic of Korea did not have any benefit to claim for confirmation against Defendant Republic of Korea.

B. Accordingly, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea is unlawful and dismissed.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant BBB, and Korea CC Co., Ltd.

A. The Defendants, even though they were served with the instant complaint by means of not going through service by public notice, did not submit a written response and did not dispute at the date of pleading, therefore, they are deemed to have led to confession.

B. Therefore, the Defendants confirm that Nonparty DDD Korea Co., Ltd. deposited in gold No. 19343 on December 5, 2008, the Seoul Central District Court confirmed that the right to claim payment of deposit money was the Plaintiff.

5. Determination as to the claim against the Defendant EEE Guarantee Fund

(a) In regard to whether the Plaintiff received the notification of the assignment of claims from Defendant BBB by oral delegation, it is not sufficient to recognize the same only by the descriptions of the following: the witness’s testimony and evidence Nos. 2, and evidence Nos. 7 through 12, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

B. Rather, according to the witness's testimony, the plaintiff received the claim of this case on condition of extending the maturity of the bill of this case. The plaintiff was intended to execute the claim of this case only to the original credit amount against the defendant BBB, and the plaintiff did not extend the maturity of the bill of this case. The plaintiff's representative director of the defendant GGGG and the head of the Tong were found to have refused the plaintiff's request to change the corporate sense and head of Tong. The fact that the fact that the defendant's representative director of GGG did not delegate the power to notify the assignment to the plaintiff in the contract of this case is not recognized as above, and if so, it is reasonable to view that the assignment of the claim of this case is aimed at securing the plaintiff's claim to the defendant BBB, and if so, it would be reasonable to view that the defendant BBB would be able to give the plaintiff the notice of the transfer to the plaintiff before the maturity of the alternative promissory note of this case 1.

(c) Accordingly, the plaintiff's claims against the defendant EEE Guarantee Fund are without merit.

6. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant in the Republic of Korea is unlawful and dismissed, and the claims against the defendant BB, and Korea CC Co., Ltd. are cited for the reasons, and the claims against the defendant EEE Guarantee Fund are dismissed for the reason. It is so decided as per Disposition.