[1] In a case where the validity of the acceptance of the assignment of claims is at issue, the case affirming the judgment below that the obligor did not specify the claim subject to the acceptance on the ground that there was no indication of the transferred claim or the amount of the transferred claim in the acceptance

[2] The meaning and purport of "notification or acceptance by the certificate with a fixed date" under Article 450 (2) of the Civil Code as a requisite for setting up against the transfer of designated assignment, and the concept of "fixed date"

[3] The case holding that the above written consent constitutes "a certificate with a fixed date" under Article 450 (2) of the Civil Code in a case where only a statement is made on the date of acceptance of the written consent of assignment prepared by the head of the branch office of the Korea Land Corporation, the debtor, and the specific date is an official disturbance

[1] In a case where a debtor's consent to the assignment of claims becomes problematic, the case affirming the judgment below holding that the claim subject to the consent is not specified in the above assignment of claims in light of the fact that the debtor bears the future obligation to return the sale price for the land B in addition to the obligation to return the sale price for the land A, and the letter of consent did not state any indication or amount of the transferred claim

[2] In a case where there is a third party in a position that is incompatible with the assignee of a nominative claim, if the assignee of the claim first satisfies all the requirements for setting up against the assignee of the claim prior to acquiring such status, the assignee of the claim may oppose the assignment of claim to the third party. In this context, the “notification or acceptance by the document on the fixed date” means that the notification or acceptance by the document on the fixed date itself must be a document with a fixed date. The purport of the Civil Act, which provides for the notification or acceptance by the document on the fixed date, is to prevent the infringement of a third party’s right by retrospectively from the date of notification or acceptance by collusion with the transferor, transferee, and debtor. Meanwhile, “the fixed date” refers to the date recognized as the fixed date by law, such as Article 3 of the Addenda of the Civil Act (amended by February 22, 1958) and Article 3(4) of the aforementioned Addenda of the Civil Act, provides that “the fixed date shall be a document certifying certain matters on the date entered in the notarial deed or a private document.”

[3] In a case where Gap loaned a pre-sale agreement to Eul who entered into a contract with the Korea Land Corporation for sale in lots to secure loan claims, Eul entered into an agreement to transfer a part of Eul's claim to return the proceeds of sale in lots to Eul, and the head of the Korea Land Corporation's branch office, the debtor of the claim to return the proceeds of sale in lots, prepares a written consent to the effect that he accepts the assignment of claims for part of the bonds transferred under the above contract to the Korea Land Corporation, and the specific date is written as "the date of August 2004" with the public notice, the case holding that the acceptance date entered in the above written consent in the name of the head of the Korea Land Corporation in the name of the head of the Korea Land Corporation constitutes "the date when it proves what is stated in the No. 3 (4) of the Civil Act or the date when it is entered in the No. 22, 1958," and thus, it can be viewed that the above written consent can be seen as an ordinary fixed date prior to the specific date's expiration date.

[1] Article 450 of the Civil Act / [2] Article 450 (2) of the Civil Act, Article 3 (4) of the Addenda ( February 22, 1958) / [3] Article 450 (2) of the Civil Act, Article 3 (4) of the Addenda ( February 22, 1958) of the Civil Act, Article 4 of the former Korea Land Corporation Act (repealed by Article 2 of Addenda of the Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act (Act No. 9706 of May 22, 2009) (see Article 4 of the current Korea Land and Housing Corporation Act)

National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (Law Firm Kim & Yang World, Attorneys Lee Won-won, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Republic of Korea and two others (Attorneys Kim Yong-mun et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 2008Na18918 decided May 27, 2009

The part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff concerning the claim for confirmation of the right to withdraw deposit amounting to KRW 310,000,000 shall be reversed, and this part of the case shall be remanded to Busan High Court. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Regarding ground of appeal No. 1

The lower court determined that the consent of the Korea Land Corporation on March 29, 2004 by the Korea Land Corporation cannot be deemed as having specified the claim subject to the consent, in light of the following circumstances surrounding the acceptance of the transfer of claim as of March 29, 2004, namely, the Korea Land Corporation, at the time of the above consent, was liable for the return of sale price in addition to the future obligation to return sale price for the land of this case to the Dong-hee Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Dong-hee Development”), the debtor, at the time of the transfer of claim. Nevertheless, the above consent did not state any indication or amount of the claim transferred.

In light of the records, we affirm the judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of determination as to whether to specify the transferred claim, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

As long as a claim transferred subject to the consent of March 29, 2004 is not specified and it is not clear whether it is the consent to the assignment of an alternative transferee's claim, it is not meaningful to further examine who states the date of consent given by the above-mentioned consent. Thus, the grounds for appeal that the court below erred in not clearly ascertaining the facts about the person whose date of consent was given, cannot be accepted.

3. Regarding ground of appeal No. 3

A. In a case where there is a third party in a position that is incompatible with the assignee of a nominative claim, if the assignee of the claim first satisfies all the requirements for setting up against the assignee of the claim prior to the acquisition of such status, the assignee of the claim may set up against the said third party the assignment of claim. In this context, the term “notification or acceptance by the certificate with the fixed date” means that notification or acceptance must be the certificate with the fixed date itself.

The purpose of the Civil Act is to prevent any infringement of a third party’s rights by in collusion between the transferor, transferee, and debtor of a claim and by retroactively counting the date of notification or acceptance.

Meanwhile, Article 3(4) of the Addenda to the Civil Act provides that “The date of confirmation” refers to the date recognized as a fixed date by law, such as Article 3 of the Addenda to the Civil Act, and Article 3(4) of the Addenda to the Civil Act provides that “the date on which a document is entered in a notarial deed or by a public office provides that “the date

B. According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the records, when the plaintiff extended an intermediate loan to the land of this case on March 29, 2004 and delivered the above written consent on September 2, 2004 to the plaintiff on September 2, 2004 and on September 2, 2004, when the contract for the sale of the land of this case was cancelled on the same day for securing the loan claims, it entered into a contract for the transfer of this case with the purport that the total amount of KRW 1.573 million is transferred from the East-hee Development from the total amount of the claim for the refund of the sale price to be returned from the Korea Land Corporation. The former North Korean branch of the Korea Land Corporation, the debtor of the above contract for the refund of the sale price, entered the written consent with the purport that the transfer of the bonds of this case shall be KRW 310 million from among the bonds transferred by the contract for the transfer of this case, and entered the above written consent on September 2, 2004 on September 2, 2004.

In light of the above legal principles, the acceptance date stated in the written consent of this case prepared by the former president of the Korea Land Corporation under the name of the former president of the former Korea Land Corporation under Article 4 of the Korea Land Corporation Act, which provides an investment in the total amount of capital, shall be deemed a fixed date since it falls under the "date of the entry in the authentic document or the date of entry in the official document in the official document" under Article 3 (4) of the Addenda of the Civil Act. Furthermore, the acceptance date stated in the written consent of this case as " August 2004" shall not be deemed as the "date of August 200," and it is, in principle, impossible for the parties to this case to arbitrarily apply to at least the date prior to the pertinent month. Thus, the mere entry of the above acceptance date alone can achieve a considerable part of the purport of preventing the retroactive effect of the acceptance date due to the obligor's collusion, if it can be specified by the document preparation ledger of the Korea Land Corporation, which is the subject of giving the above date, and even if there is no such document preparation, it can be a specific fixed fixed date at least eight days.

Ultimately, it is reasonable to see that the date of acceptance, which is written in the written consent of this case as the “date of August 2004”, is a valid fixed date under Article 3(4) of the Addenda of the Civil Act. Thus, the written consent of this case constitutes a “certificate with a fixed date” under Article 450(2) of the Civil Act.

Nevertheless, the lower court rejected the Plaintiff’s claim in this case by deeming that the written consent of this case does not fall under the certificate with a fixed date. In so doing, it erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine on the fixed date, thereby affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiff’s assertion pointing this out is with merit

4. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below against the plaintiff concerning the claim to confirm the right to deposit money of KRW 310 million is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. The remaining appeal by the plaintiff is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)