There is a right to deposit and transfer money to a person who has transferred the claim before the collection order is issued.

If there is no evidence that the transferee of the claim prior to the seizure and collection order knows the existence of the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claim, or it is proved that he was not aware of it by gross negligence, the deposit withdrawal right is against the transferee of the claim.

Transferability of claim of Article 449(2) of the Civil Act

2013da 13176 Action for the Confirmation of Return of Deposit

JAA

Republic of Korea and 42

May 29, 2014

June 19, 2014

1. On July 18, 2013, BB marine corporation confirmed that the right to claim payment of deposit money of KRW 000 deposited by Changwon District Court Heading the Changwon District Court was the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by each person;

Cheong-gu Office

As set forth in the Disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision)

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into an oil supply contract with Defendant AA (hereinafter referred to as “A”) as a person who operates gas stations on the ○○○○○-si’s surface, and supplied oil from April 2012.

On August 31, 2012, Defendant AA transferred to the Plaintiff a transportation claim of KRW 0 million against BB Marine Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “B”). Upon delegation from Defendant AA, the Plaintiff notified the transfer of claims to BB through content-certified mail on December 20, 2012, and the mail was served to BB on December 21, 2012.

B. DefendantCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC”) rendered the seizure and collection order, and provisional seizure against Defendant AA’s above transport price claim against BB.

C. B made a mixed deposit under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil House Administrative Court Act as to KRW 000 of the transport cost of Defendant A’s KRW 000 by Changwon District Court, Changwon District Court, Changwon District Court, 2013 (hereinafter “B”) on July 18, 2013 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

D. Meanwhile, the seizure and collection order of the Defendants, including DefendantCC, and provisional seizure of the claim was made after December 21, 2012 when the notice of assignment of claims to BB was given to the Plaintiff.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 or 9 evidence (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. According to the above facts, since the date on which the Plaintiff transferred the claim against the Defendant A to BB and notified it to the BB is prior to the date of seizure and provisional seizure on the claim against the Plaintiff, the Defendants except the date of seizure and provisional seizure on the claim against the Plaintiff, the right to claim for payment of the deposit money is entitled to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination on the Defendant’s assertion

1) The defendant limited liability company D, 200, 00, 00, and 2 are asserting that the transfer of claims between the plaintiff and AA is null and void, since there exists a special agreement on the prohibition of transfer between the plaintiff and B.

In the event that a third party takes over a claim from a creditor, a transferee who is aware of the existence of a special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claim, or a transferee who is grossly negligent in not knowing the existence of such special agreement, may set up the claim by such special agreement. A third party’s bad faith or gross negligence must be asserted and proved by a person who intends to set up against the assignee with a special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claim (see, e.g., Article 449(2) of the Civil Act and Supreme Court Decision 2010Da8310, May 13, 2010). However, there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was aware of the existence of the special agreement prohibiting the assignment of claim or was grossly negligent. Accordingly, the above assertion is groundless

2) Defendant EE Capital Co., Ltd. asserts to the effect that, on October 16, 2012, on December 20, 2012, the transfer of the claim against BB to the Plaintiff on December 20, 2012, which was about two months after A took out a loan of KRW 10 million on October 16, 2012, such transfer constitutes a fraudulent act for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by the above Defendant, which is the obligee. However, the above circumstance alleged by the Defendant is insufficient to readily conclude that the transfer of the claim by A constitutes a fraudulent act for the purpose of evading compulsory execution, and there is no other evidence,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is wholly accepted.