1. The Defendants deposited with E Company No. 17188, August 1, 2014, the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court 2014) 100.2.

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The heating between the obligee of the legal doctrine and the obligee of the provisional seizure of the claim is to be determined on the basis of the time when the requisite for setting up against the third party is satisfied, that is, the time when the assignment of claims with a fixed date and the order of provisional seizure (a seizure) reaches the third obligor.

B. In the case of this proposal, the facts stated in the separate sheet may be recognized by each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5, unless there is a dispute between the parties or by the parties.

According to the above facts, since the plaintiff's notice of assignment of claims with the fixed date reached the Republic of Korea as a third party prior to the defendants' provisional seizure order, the plaintiff can assert that the claim for recovery of the deposit of this case belongs to the principal according to the contract of assignment of claims of this case in relation to the defendants. In addition, in order to resolve the conflict of rights between the plaintiff and the defendants, legal benefits to seek confirmation that the claims for recovery of the deposit of this case belong

2. Determination as to Defendant B’s defense

A. The gist of the defense is that the transfer of the claim to the Plaintiff constitutes a fraudulent act, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for confirmation of this case must be rejected.

B. Where the obligor knowingly performs a juristic act aimed at a property right with the knowledge that it would prejudice the obligee, the obligee may not claim a revocation of the fraudulent act by means of filing a lawsuit with the court, as an attack and defense method in the lawsuit.

(Supreme Court Decision 95Da8393 delivered on July 25, 1995). In light of the above legal principles, the above defendant's defense is without merit without further review.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.