Claim for the confirmation of claim for payment of deposit money

The plaintiff's right to claim the deposit of this case is confirmed to the plaintiff's successor.

Article 487 of the Civil Act

2015 Gohap 1731 Action to confirm the claim for payment of deposit money

0000000

000 and 46 others

June 8, 2017

July 13, 2017

1. It is confirmed that the right to claim for payment of deposit money in KRW 238,57,602 deposited by the Daejeon District Court of Daejeon District on August 5, 2015 by the cccccccccccccc and in gold No. 746, 2015 is against the succeeding intervenor.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants in respect of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Intervenor’s Intervenor and the Plaintiff’s Intervenor, 000, 000, 000, 000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff, the Intervenor’s Intervenor and the other Defendants shall be borne by the Defendants respectively.

Cheong-gu Office

Succession Intervenor: as set forth in the Disposition.

1. Basic facts

A. On April 3, 2013, the Plaintiff: Defendant B Foundation Aaaa (from the following)

The loan was made on June 27, 2016 after the due date of reimbursement of KRW 1.75 billion.

B. Defendant B Foundation, on April 3, 2013, in order to secure the obligation of the above loans, Defendant B Foundation, to the Plaintiff.

B. The Foundation transferred claims, such as medical expenses, bb expenses, and medical care expenses (from the next date, hereinafter referred to as "claims, such as medical expenses of this case") within the limit of 18 billion won (hereinafter referred to as "transfer of claims"). Defendant Bcccccccccccccccccccc on April 8, 2013, and the above notice reached ccccccccccccccccccc on April 9, 2013.

C. Defendant B Foundation filed an application for rehabilitation on July 10, 2014 ( Daejeon District Court 2014 Gohap5007)

A) On September 26, 2014, the foregoing court rendered a decision to commence rehabilitation, but on April 15, 2015, rendered a decision to discontinue rehabilitation prior to authorization of a rehabilitation plan pursuant to Article 286(1)1 of the Debtor Rehabilitation and Bankruptcy Act. The foregoing decision was finalized on April 30, 2015.

D. The remaining Defendants except Defendant BB Foundation received the provisional attachment decision, seizure and collection order, or notified the attachment of the claim, such as the medical expenses of this case, which Defendant BC had against ccccccc, as shown in the attached list.

E. Cccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

F. On February 3, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the status of the Plaintiff to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to 18 billion won out of the claims, such as the instant medical expenses, from Defendant B Foundation. On February 12, 2016, the Plaintiff notified that the transfer was made with a fixed date ccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccccc

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 to 5 evidence (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Determination on the cause of the claim

1) Where the assignment of claims and the provisional seizure order, etc. are concurrent with those concerning the same claim;

The highest order between them is determined by the notice of assignment of claims with a fixed date and after the arrival of the third debtor, such as the original copy of the decision of provisional seizure, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da24223, Apr. 26, 1994).

2) In light of the above legal principles, according to the above facts, Defendant B Foundation’s notification with a fixed date on the assignment of the instant claim, including the medical expenses of this case, to the Plaintiff within the limit of 18 billion won, reached cccccccccccccccccccc in order to the remainder of the Defendants except Defendant BBccc foundation, the provisional seizure of the claim, the seizure and the collection order, and the seizure notification. Therefore, the claim, such as the instant medical expenses, was transferred to the Plaintiff, and the alteration thereof was also attributed to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor’s right to claim the payment of the instant deposit was transferred to the Plaintiff by acquiring the status on the Plaintiff’s claim, such as the medical expenses of this case

3) Therefore, in the case of so-called mixed deposits, where the claims for payment of the instant deposit are made by the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor and the assignee of the instant claim designated as the principal deposit and the execution deposit is mixed on the grounds of seizure competition, the deposit may be paid only when a written consent attached to the transferor or another transferee, the provisional seizure authority, etc., or a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the Plaintiff as to the claim for payment of the deposit deposit against them, and thus, there is a benefit to seek confirmation against the Defendants [the fact that the Plaintiff did not withdraw from the instant lawsuit is apparent in the record, and the claims of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor continue to remain effective as ordinary co-litigation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2002Da16729, Jul. 9, 2004). In view of the purport of the claim for payment of the instant deposit and the claim for change of the cause of claim to the Plaintiff’s succeeding to the Plaintiff’s right to claim for payment of the deposit in this case, the Plaintiff’s succeeding to the Plaintiff’s right to claim for payment of the lawsuit cannot be determined.

B. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant 00,00,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000, and 000

1) The above Defendants asserted that the assignment of claims in this case constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy and thus invalid because they transferred claims, such as medical expenses of this case, to the Plaintiff without any cause, for the purpose of evading compulsory execution by other creditors, including wage creditors.

However, the submitted evidence alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge them, so the above argument cannot be accepted.

2) The Defendants, even if the rehabilitation procedure commenced and the rehabilitation plan was abolished before the approval of the rehabilitation plan, are also discontinued.

Since the effect of this case's medical expenses and other claims during rehabilitation procedures is unreasonable, since the part of the claims, such as this case's medical expenses, arising out of the act based on the status of the administrator, is not included in the object of the assignment of claims and thus does not affect the security

However, in a case where rehabilitation procedures commence with respect to the transferor of claims after the assignment of claims for the purpose of security, it is not included in the object of the security for the assignment of claims. However, if the rehabilitation procedures are abolished before the authorization of the rehabilitation plan, any claims arising after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures are extinguished, and claims arising after the commencement of rehabilitation procedures are reverted to the debtor's property, which is the transferor of claims, and are deviating from restrictions or restrictions due to the rehabilitation procedures. Therefore, it is reasonable to view that the claim of this case remains effective in the part of the rehabilitation procedures

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the claims against the plaintiff and the plaintiff succeeding intervenor against the defendants shall be accepted for all reasons, and it is so decided as per Disposition.