1. As to the 30,433,979 won deposited by the Incheon District Court No. 7289 in 2013.

1. Basic facts

A. On September 29, 2005, Defendant C and D made a notarial deed of a monetary loan agreement to the effect that “D lends KRW 700,000,000 to Defendant C on September 26, 2005.”

(No. 1033) Certificate of E Office of notary public belonging to the Incheon District Prosecutors' Office, 205.

On October 12, 2010, the Plaintiff loaned 50,000,000 won as interest, 1,000,000 won as of November 11, 2012.

Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Company”) whose representative director is D, has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to repay loans to the Plaintiff.

C. 1) On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company determined the principal and interest of the above loan as KRW 70,000,000, and the Defendant Company’s effect (hereinafter “effective”) for the repayment of the said loan.

(2) On August 30, 2013, the Defendant Company notified the Plaintiff of the entire claim related to the logistics out-of-the-job contract (the instant claim) to the Plaintiff, and prepared a transfer or takeover contract (the instant claim assignment) with the aforementioned content. (2) The Defendant Company notified the effect to the effect as a certificate with the fixed date.

3) The effectiveness was served on September 2, 2013 with the notice of assignment of the instant claim. D. The Defendant C applied for a seizure and collection order (Seoul District Court 2013TTT25778) with respect to the instant claim, and served on September 3, 2013 with the seizure and collection order of the said claim. The effectiveness was served on the Defendant Company or the Plaintiff on October 4, 2013. On October 4, 2013, the deposited person was the Defendant Company or the Plaintiff, and deposited KRW 30,43,979 with respect to the instant non-logistics contract, as the deposited person, KRW 30,43,979 with respect to the Defendant B, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act (the Incheon District Court Decision 2013Da72899,

As to the above mixed deposit ground, filial duty is valid, the special agreement between the defendant and the non-assignment of the assignment of claims was entered into between the defendant and the defendant company, and the defendant C was served with the seizure and collection order. Therefore, filial duty is null and void of the assignment of claims, the attachment of claims and the order of collection order