1. SP Korea Co., Ltd. deposited on December 28, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 28677, Dec. 28, 2015.

Basic Facts

On October 19, 2015, A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Bankruptcy Debtor”) filed for bankruptcy with the Seoul Central District Court 2015Hahap10154, and was declared bankrupt on November 9, 2015, and the Plaintiff was appointed as bankruptcy trustee.

On the other hand, the bankrupt debtor is a company that operates the system integration business, software development, etc., and received a contract for D projects from SP Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “SP Korea”) before filing a petition for bankruptcy. On June 3, 2015, the bankruptcy debtor entrusted the Defendant with some of the above projects at KRW 4,90,000 per day.

On October 2015, the bankruptcy debtor, on the following day, failed to pay to the defendant the service price for September 2015 and October 2015, the bankruptcy debtor transferred KRW 7,360,000 (value-added tax separate) out of the above project contract bond against EP Korea on October 20, 2015, and again transferred 460,000 out of the above bonds to the defendant on October 27, 2015, and notified EPP Korea of the fact of transferring the above assignment.

(B) The Plaintiff notified EPP Korea that the instant claim should be attributed to the bankrupt estate, including the said contract claim. On December 28, 2015, EPP Korea designated the deposited person as the Defendant or the Plaintiff on the ground that the effect of the instant claim cannot be known as a gold No. 28677 by the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015, Dec. 28, 2015, and deposited the deposited amount of KRW 8,602,00 (7,360,000) (460,000) x 1.1) of the total amount of the transferred claim including value-added tax, as the obligee’s non-existent deposit.

【In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 9 (including each number), the parties' assertion as to the purport of the whole pleadings, and the plaintiff's assertion as to this point, the plaintiff asserts that the claim for payment of the deposit should be attributed to the plaintiff, since the assignment of claims in this case falls under an intentional or critical part.

2.3.