Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

The Plaintiff, at the time of the transfer of the instant claim, did not actually have a loan claim against ○○ Construction at the time of the transfer of the instant claim, and did not intend to acquire the instant claim, and entered into the instant transfer of claim formally in order to create only the appearance of the transfer of claim. Therefore, the instant transfer of claim is null and void as it is a contract by false indication that has conspired

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Sam-ri corporation is dismissed.

2. On January 28, 2005, the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○○ Industrial Development Co., Ltd., ○○○ Industries Development Co., Ltd., ○○○ Industry Co., Ltd., ○○○○○, ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., Ltd., and Samwon District Court was the Plaintiff with the right to deposit KRW 200,00,000 out of KRW 224,689,510, which was deposited by Samwon District Court No. 398 on January 28, 2005

3. The Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant ○○, Republic of Korea, and public road is dismissed, respectively.

4. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○○, the largest number of ○○, the Republic of Korea, and the public road is borne by the Plaintiff. The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○ L&C, the ○○ Industries Development Co., Ltd., the ○○○ Industry Development Co., Ltd., the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant ○○○○, the ○○ Industry Development Co., Ltd., the ○○ Industry Development

On January 28, 2005, the right to deposit KRW 200,000, out of the total amount of KRW 224,689,510, which was deposited by the defendant Samluri District Court No. 398 in Geumwon District Court was confirmed to be the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

The following facts shall not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by considering the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry in the evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 2-1 through 4 of the evidence No. 4-5, and No. 2-4:

A. The ○○ Construction Industry Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Construction”) had a claim for the construction cost of KRW 224,689,510 against the Defendant Samuri Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○”).

B. Upon delegation of ○○ Construction on January 3, 2005, the Plaintiff sent from ○○○○ on October 10, 2004 to Defendant Sam-ri, and from ○○ Construction, the Plaintiff notified the Plaintiff of the acquisition of the claim KRW 200,000,000 of the construction cost claim stated in A. (hereinafter “instant claim”). This was reached to ○○ on January 4, 2005.

C. On January 20, 2005, the Defendant Republic of Korea attached the claim for construction cost as stated in paragraph (a) against the Defendant Samuri-ri of ○○ Construction based on the claim of KRW 359,645,780, total amount of delinquent amount, such as value-added tax, corporate tax, and wage and salary income tax on ○○ Construction (hereinafter “instant attachment”).

D. Defendant ○○○, ○○ L&C (hereinafter referred to as “○○ L&C”), ○ Industrial Development (hereinafter referred to as “○○ Industry”), public roads, ○○ Industrial Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○ Industry”), and ○○○○ Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “○○○○”), based on the goods payment claim against ○○ Construction or construction payment claim, etc., they provisionally seized the claim for the construction payment claim as stated in the instant provisional attachment (hereinafter referred to as “instant provisional attachment”), and the instant provisional attachment decision was served on Defendant Sam○-ri from January 5, 2005 to January 26, 2005.

E. On January 28, 2005, it is impossible to affirm that ○○ Construction repeated repeated the assignment and termination of the assignment of claims, and that the Plaintiff’s notification of the assignment of claims of this case satisfies legitimate requirements, and that the notification of the assignment of claims of this case cannot be known to anyone who will pay the construction cost by being served with the provisional attachment and seizure decision of this case by other creditors, pursuant to Articles 248(1) and 291 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 487 of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff, Defendant ○○○, Defendant ○○, ○○○○, ○○○○ Industrial Development, ○○○ Industrial Development, ○○○ Industrial Development, ○○○ Industrial Development, ○○○○, ○○○○ Industrial Development, ○○○○, ○○○○, ○○○○○, and Nonparty ○○ Deposit with the amount of KRW 224,689,510 as a deposit in Suwon District Court in 2005.

2. Determination on the main safety defense of Defendant Sam-ri

The plaintiff is seeking confirmation that the defendant Sam-ri, the depositor, has the right to claim a payment of deposit against the plaintiff. However, in the relative unfashion deposit, the "documents proving that the person who intends to claim a payment of deposit has the right to claim a payment of deposit under Article 8 (1) of the Deposit Act and Article 30 of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs" refers to the judgment, etc. proving that the respondent has the right to claim a payment of deposit against the other deposited parties, and the lawsuit against Sam-ri is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. The plaintiff's assertion

The Plaintiff, on May 13, 2004, lent KRW 200,000,00 to ○○ Construction with interest rate of KRW 5% per month and due date of payment on June 30, 2004 (hereinafter “the instant loan”). In lieu of receiving the instant loan claims, the Plaintiff acquired the instant claim from ○○ Construction on October 10, 2004, and the notification date of the instant transfer by the certificate with the fixed date was earlier than the delivery date of the instant provisional attachment or seizure decision, the Plaintiff asserts that the right to pay the instant deposit is the Plaintiff.

4. Determination as to the claim against Defendant ○○ L&C, ○ Industry Development, ○○ Industry, and ○○○○○.

Defendant ○○○ L&C, ○○ Industrial Development, ○○ Industry, ○○○, and ○○○○ was served with lawful service not by public notice, but did not clearly dispute the Plaintiff’s assertion by failing to submit a written answer on the date of pleading. Therefore, it is deemed that each confession was made pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, between the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○ L&C, ○○ Industry Development Co., Ltd., ○○ Industry Development Co., Ltd., ○○○ Industry Co., Ltd., and ○○○○○○ Co., Ltd., the right to withdraw KRW 200,000 out of the instant deposit money

5. Determination on the claim on Defendant ○○, Republic of Korea, and public road

Defendant ○○, Republic of Korea, and public roads asserted that the Plaintiff’s request is invalid as a false declaration of agreement between ○ Construction and the Plaintiff, and that the instant assignment contract between the Plaintiff is invalid as a false declaration of agreement.

살피건대, 갑 제2호증의 기재에 의하면 원고 명의의 계좌에서 2004. 5. 13.과 같은 달 14. ○○건설에게 200,000,000원이 송금된 사실은 인정되나, ① 원고의 주장에 의하더라도 2004. 5. 13. 이 사건 대여가 이루어진 때부터 그 변제에 갈음하여 원고가 2004. 10. 10. 이 사건 채권을 양수할 때까지 약 5개월 동안 약정이자가 원금의 1/4인 50,000,000(=200,000,000X이율0.05X5월)원에 이르는 거액임에도 이 사건 채권 양도계약 당시에 원고와 ○○건설이 이 사건 대여금의 이자에 관하여 정산한 사정이 나타나지 않는 점, ② 원고는 이 사건 대여 이외에도 ○○건설과 금전거래가 있었다는 주장을 전혀 하지 않다가, 피고 대한민국이 의문을 제기하자 비로소 2004. 6. 5.과 같은 해 7. 27.에 ○○건설에게 20,000,000원을 추가로 대여하였다고 주장하고 있는데(2006. 12. 14.자 준비서면), 이에 의하면 같은 해 10. 10. 이 사건 채권을 양수하면서 추가로 대여한 금원을 포함하여 200,000,000원 이상의 채권을 양수할 수 있었음에도(○○건설의 삼○리에 대한 채권액은 224,689,510원이다) 200,000,000원의 채권만을 양수한 것은 납득하기 어려운 점, ③ 원고는 2004. 10. 10. 이 사건 채권을 양수한 때부터 2005. 1. 3.에 직접 피고 삼천리에게 채권양도통지를 하기까지 3개월에 가까운 기간 동안 ○○건설에게 채권양도통지를 해줄 것을 요구하거나 ○○건설로부터 위임을 받아 직접 통지를 하는 등 큰 어려움 없이 할 수 있는 채권확보를 위한 노력을 기울이지 않는 채권확보를 위한 노력을 기울이지 않은 점, ④ 갑 제1호증의 기재에 의하면 원고가 이 사건 대여금채권의 담보로 ○○건설이 대물로 취득한 의정부시 소재 ○○퍼스트빌3 201호를 양도받기로 하였는데, 을 제7호증의 1에 나타난 바와 같이 2004. 7. 29.에 위 부동산에 관하여 소외 김○옥 명의로 소유권보존등기가, 같은 해 9. 13. 소외 남○흥 명의로 소유권이전등기가 각 이루어지고 같은 해 10. 22. ○○건설을 채무자로 한 소외 신창윤의 근저당권설정등기가 이루어지기까지 원고는 ○○건설에 대하여 위 약정대로 위 부동산을 양도할 것을 요구하거나 근저당권설정등기를 요구하는 등 이 사건 채권확보를 위해 노력한 사정이 보이지 않는바, 이는 통상적으로 진정한 채권자가 취하는 태도라고 보기 어려운 점(이 사건 대여금의 변제기에 위 부동산이 ○○건설 소유로 등기되어 있지 않았다거나 원고가 2004. 5. 19. ○○건설로부터 공사기성금으로 최우선 지급하겠다는 약속을 받았다는 등 원고가 주장하는 사정을 감안하더라도 그러하다), ⑤ 원고는 이 사건 대여금의 이자나 ○○건설과의 다른 금전거래에 관하여 아무런 주장을 하지 않다가, 피고 대한민국이 원고가 2004. 7. 23.과 같은 달 26. ○○건설로부터 합계 59,400,000원을 송금 받은 것을 문제 삼자 비로소 이 사건 대여금의 이자(월 5%, 10,000,000원)로 지급받은 것이라고 주장하나, 이 사건 대여일인 2004. 5. 13.부터 2개월 남짓 지난 시점에 6개월분(60,000,000원)에 가까운 이자를 지급받았다고 보기는 어려운 점, ⑥ 을 제5호증의 1, 2에 나타난 바와 같이 원고 운영의 ○○종합건설 주식회사(○○종합건설 주식회사에서 명칭이 변경됨)와 ○○건설이 시흥시 정왕동 1733-5 소재 같은 건물에 본점을 두고 있고, 위에서 본 금전거래 외에도 갑 제2호증, 을 제5호증의 2에 나타난 바와 같이 ○○건설의 감사인 오○주가 2004. 6. 8.과 같은 해 8. 3. 원고에게 각 10,000,000원을 송금한 점으로 보아, 원고와 ○○건설은 사업상 거래관계에 있었다고 볼 수 있고, 원고가 주장하는 이 사건 대여금 200,000,000원만을 분리하여 대여금이라고 보기는 어려운 점, ⑦ 을 제9호증의 1에서 보듯이 ○○건설의 대차대조표상의 2004. 단기차입금에 이 사건 대여금이 나타나 있지 않은 점 등을 종합적으로 검토하여 보면, 원고는 이 사건 채권 양수 당시 실제로 ○○건설에 대하여 이 사건 대여금 채권을 가지고 있지 않았고 이 사건 채권을 양수받을 의사도 없으면서 ○○건설과 통정하여 단지 채권양도의 외관만을 창출하기 위하여 형식적으로 이 사건 채권양도계약을 체결하였다고 봄이 상당하고, 이에 반하는 갑 제4호증의 1의 기재는 믿지 아니하므로, 이 사건 채권양도계약은 통정한 허위표시에 의한 계약으로서 무효이다.

Therefore, since the above argument of Defendant ○○, Korea, and public road is well-grounded, the Plaintiff is in a relationship with the above Defendants, and the Plaintiff is not a party with the right to receive the instant deposit.

6. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Sam-ri is dismissed as illegal. The claim against the defendant ○○, ○○ Industries Development Co., Ltd., ○○ Industry Development Co., Ltd., ○○○ Industry Co., Ltd., ○○○, and ○○○ Co., Ltd. is accepted as reasonable. The claim against the defendant ○○○, Korea, and public roads is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.