Criteria for determining the heat between the two parties where a double claim is transferred;

In the case of double transfer of bonds, the margin between the two parties is determined by the date of receipt of the notice of transfer with a fixed date or after the date of acceptance with a fixed date.

2018 Ghana 109002 Verification of Claim for Payment of Deposit

OO

Republic of Korea 2 others

October 24, 2018

November 28, 2018

1. It is confirmed that an OA, an OA, has the right to claim for payment of deposit money for the O's KRW 20 O.O.O. O.O. International District Court 20O.O.O.O. branch office 20O.O.O. branch office.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Conclusion of a contract for construction works;

On October 9, 2012, Defendant BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant BB”) received contracts from OO and toilet extension work (hereinafter referred to as “instant construction work”) from OO and AA (hereinafter referred to as “AA”) for construction costs.

B. Assignment of claims by the Plaintiff and Defendant BB

On December 1, 2012, Defendant BB transferred OB of the instant claim for construction cost to the Plaintiff, and notified the assignment of claims to AA by content-certified mail on December 18, 2012, and the notification reached AA on December 20, 2012.

In other words, on December 18, 2012, Defendant BB transferred OB of the instant construction cost claim to the Plaintiff on December 18, 2012, and notified the transfer of the claim to AA by content-certified mail on December 24, 2012, and the notification reached AA on December 26, 2012.

C. Settlement of the construction cost of this case

Defendant BB renounced the instant construction work on December 18, 2012, and agreed with AA on January 3, 2013 to settle the accounts of the total amount of OO members, including the progress payment of the construction payment already received between AA and AA on January 3, 2013 (hereinafter referred to as “second assignment”).

D. Attachment and assignment of claims for the contract price of this case

1) On January 14, 2013, Defendant BB attached the same amount of the instant construction cost claim on the grounds that Defendant BB did not pay taxes and additional OO Won.

2) On January 17, 2013, Defendant BB transferred to Defendant CCC (hereinafter “Defendant CCC”) an OO of the instant claim for the construction payment, and notified the assignment of claims to AA, and the notification reached AA on January 18, 2013.

(e) Deposit of AA;

AA on March 28, 2013, on the grounds that it is impossible to identify the creditor of the instant construction cost due to the concurrent transfer of claims and seizure with the O branch of the O branch of the 200O branch of the O branch of the District Court on March 28, 2013, based on Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Administrative Court Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Act, the Plaintiff and the Defendants deposited the O branch of the O branch as the deposited

[Reasons for Recognition]

BB: Each entry in Category A(1) to 3, 6, 8, 9, and Category B(1) to 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleading

CCC: Confession (Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act)

Korea: In the absence of dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, 6, 8, 9, Eul evidence 1 and 2;

2. Determination

A. In a case where a claim is transferred double, the order between the transferee shall be determined by the date of receipt of the notice of transfer with the fixed date and after the date of acceptance with the fixed date or by the date of acceptance with the fixed date, and in a case where the order of provisional seizure is determined by the person executing provisional seizure with respect to the same claim as the transferee of the claim, the order of transfer with the fixed date and the order of provisional seizure should also be determined by the date of arrival with the garnishee (in the case of the assignment of claim, by the obligor) (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 199

If a debtor satisfies the requirements for setting up against the transfer of a claim by notification, etc. with a fixed date after transferring the claim subject to attachment or provisional attachment, even if another creditor of the debtor's subsequent attachment or provisional attachment on the transferred claim, such seizure or provisional attachment does not have the effect as a seizure or provisional attachment because it does not have any existing claim at the time of the seizure or provisional attachment, and as such, other creditors may not participate in the execution procedures following the seizure, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2003Da22561, Sept. 3, 2004; 2010Da57213, Oct. 28, 2010). Such legal doctrine likewise applies where a seizure disposition based on a tax claim is taken after the debtor transfers the claim to a third party, and such seizure is not effective.

B. Examining the facts acknowledged in light of the above legal principles, the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case is deemed to exist in the Plaintiff, the transferee of the claim prior to the date of giving notice of the assignment of claims with the fixed date. The deposit of this case is a mixed deposit with the execution deposit and the repayment deposit under the Civil Act, and the principal deposit is a so-called mixed deposit deposited. The Plaintiff, the principal deposit, has the interest to seek confirmation against the other Defendants,

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is accepted on the grounds of all of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.