No claim may be asserted against a third party who has taken over the claim due to a seizure made after the debtor claims are transferred.

Where a seizure based on a tax claim is made after a notice of transfer with a fixed date is issued after a debtor's claim against a third party is transferred to a third party, it is merely a seizure of a claim already reverted to a third party, and it cannot be asserted against the third party who has acquired the claim due to a seizure based on a tax claim.

Article 450 of the Civil Act, Article 41 of the National Tax Collection Act

2012 Ghana 11150 Deposit Payment Claimer

XX Co., Ltd

XX 9 others

Ad Hoc (Defendant 1, 2, 3, 5, 9)

on August 10, 2012 (Defendant 4, 6, 7, 8, and 10)

August 24, 2012

1. The Defendants confirm that the Daegu District Court deposited in gold No. 1984 with the Daegu District Court in 2012 that the Defendant’s right to claim payment of deposit of KRW 000 is against the Plaintiff.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

A. Assignment of claims by Defendant DoA to the Plaintiff

On October 6, 201, the Plaintiff had a claim for attempted payment of the goods to Defendant DoA, and on October 6, 201, Defendant DoA transferred to the Plaintiff the claim of KRW 000 out of the claim for attempted payment of the goods (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) possessed by Defendant DoA with respect to the Food Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “ XX food”), for the payment of the said obligation (hereinafter referred to as “the assignment of the instant claim”), and the notification of the instant claim by means of a document verifying the contents of the fixed date reaches XX food on October 7, 201.

B. Provisional seizure, seizure, and collection order, and seizure order against the claim of this case

XX Food was subject to the Defendant’s decision of provisional seizure, the claim seizure and collection order, and the claim seizure order as stated below with respect to the instant claim of this case between October 27, 2011 and December 29, 2011.

(c) mixed deposits of XX food;

Accordingly, the amount of the instant claim is KRW 148,285,759, and the authenticity of the instant claim cannot be known, and the seizure and provisional seizure are concurrent with respect to the instant claim, the deposited person was designated as Defendant DoA and the Plaintiff in Daegu District Court (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) in 2012 as the Daegu District Court No. 1984 in 2012.

[Reasons for Recognition]

I, 2, 3, 5, 9: Confession

4, 6, 7, 8, 10: Fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence Nos. I, 3, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

In a case where a double credit is transferred, the credit between the assignee does not need to be determined by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor's awareness of the credit transfer, that is, by the date and time when the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the debtor, or by the date and time when the consent with the fixed date reaches the debtor. This legal principle also applies in a case where the creditor determines a heat between the executor of the provisional seizure order with respect to the same credit as the assignee, so the credit transfer notification with the fixed date and the original copy of the provisional seizure decision shall be determined by the prior date when the arrival of the garnishee (the debtor in the case of the assignment of credit; hereinafter the same shall apply) reaches the original copy of the provisional seizure order (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da24

In the instant case, the Plaintiff’s notification of the transfer of claims of this case reaches XX food prior to the Defendants’ decision of provisional seizure, seizure and collection order of claims, and the seizure order of claims, as seen earlier. As such, the Plaintiff’s right to claim payment of the instant deposit is deemed to be the Plaintiff.

On the other hand, the deposit of this case is a mixed deposit which combines the repayment deposit and the execution deposit made on the grounds of the relative uncertainty deposit designated by the transferor or transferee as the beneficiary and the seizure and provisional seizure. In the case of a mixed deposit, one of the parties to whom the deposit is made can pay the deposit only when attaching a letter of consent attached by the other parties to the deposit and seizure, a letter of consent issued by the provisional seizure creditor, or a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the creditor's right to claim the payment of the deposit, and in the case of this case, the defendant Republic of Korea, 0BB, SCC, KimD, and the Small and Medium Business Corporation are disputing the plaintiff's right to claim the payment of the deposit. Thus, the plaintiff has

3. Determination as to the assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea, 0B, ACC, KimD, and the Small and Medium Business Corporation

A. Determination on the assertion regarding a non-assignment agreement

The above Defendants: (a) concluded a special agreement with Defendant DoA to prohibit the transfer of the instant claim held by Defendant DoA to a third party without prior consent of XX food; (b) however, Defendant DoA transferred the instant claim to the Plaintiff without prior consent of XX food; (c) on the other hand, the Plaintiff knew of, or was grossly negligent in, the fact that the foregoing special agreement was entered into with respect to the prohibition of the transfer of the instant claim; and (d) therefore, the instant assignment of claim is null and void.

"In the absence of dispute between the parties with respect to the fact that there was a special agreement between the parties to not transfer the claim of this case to a third party without prior consent of XX food," but the debtor can set up against the assignee who knows the existence of the special agreement on the prohibition of assignment of claims or the assignee who was grossly negligent in not knowing the existence of such special agreement if the third party acquired the claim from the creditor, and the "serious negligence" in this context refers to the fact that the existence of such special agreement is not easily known even if the third party did not pay considerable attention to the extent that is ordinarily required, if he did not pay considerable attention to the existence of such special agreement, he did not know the existence of such special agreement. The third party's bad faith or gross negligence means that the person who wants to set up against the assignee of the special agreement on the prohibition of delivery of claims is obliged to assert and prove it (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200Da536, 5343, Jan. 24, 2003).

The defendant Republic of Korea asserts that the national tax, additional dues, or disposition fee for arrears should be collected in preference to other public charges and other claims under Article 35 of the Framework Act on National Taxes.

However, in the case of this case, where a seizure based on a taxation claim is made on the same claim after a debtor's claim against a third party is transferred to a third party and the notification of transfer with a fixed date has been made, barring any circumstances such as cancellation or invalidation of the above assignment of claim, it is merely a seizure of the claim already reverted to a third party based on a taxation claim against the debtor, and it cannot be set up against the third party who has acquired the claim based on a taxation claim. Thus, the claim of this case is transferred prior to the seizure of the above claim of the defendant Republic of Korea prior to the seizure of the above claim of this case, and the fact that the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches XX food that is the third party debtor

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.