The non-recognition of the priority claim of the notice of assignment of claims without a fixed date before the attachment notice arrives.

The certificate of assignment of claims shall not be deemed a notification of the assignment of claims by a certificate with a fixed date attached to the debtor, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the notification of the assignment of claims was made by the certificate with a fixed

2012 grouped 38342 of the Demurrer

AA enterprise, Inc.

1.KoreaB 2. Korea

June 21, 2013

July 19, 2013

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

In the first place, with respect to the distribution procedure case of Busan District Court 2012TY537, the dividend amount of the defendant HanB shall be corrected as OOO, the plaintiff's dividend amount as OOOOO, the defendant's dividend amount as OOOO, and the dividend amount of the defendant's Republic of Korea as OOOO.

Preliminaryly, the dividend amount of the defendant Republic of Korea shall be KRW 0,000, and the amount of the plaintiff's dividend amount shall be corrected to KRW 0,000,000,000.

1. Basic facts

A. On October 28, 2011, CCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “CCC”) transferred OOOOB to Defendant HanB among cargo transport fares claims against DD Shipping Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DD Shipping”), and notified the transfer, and the above notification reached DD Shipping on November 1, 201.

B. On November 3, 2011, CCC transferred OOO to the Plaintiff among cargo freight claims against DD Shipping, and notified the transfer of such claims, and it reached DD Shipping on November 7, 201.

C. On November 3, 2011, the Busan Jindo Office: (a) seized the amount of the cargo freight bonds held by CCC against DD Shipping until the amount in arrears; and (b) notified it to DD Shipping on November 7, 201.

D. On February 29, 2012, upon receipt of the notification of the assignment of claims and the notification of attachment, DDR deposited OOOOO as Busan District Court No. 2012Hun-Ba1746, on the ground of competition between seizure and notification of attachment. In the Busan District Court’s distribution procedure (hereinafter “instant distribution procedure”), the said court drafted a distribution schedule (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”) with the same content as the following table, with the amount actually distributed dividends of KRW 203,454,37, Apr. 30, 2012.

List of votes

Priority

Amount of credit;

Amount of dividends

1

IB

Person entitled to take over

OOOE

OOOE

2

Busan High Tax Office

A seizure authority

OOOE

OOOE

E. On April 30, 2012, the Plaintiff appeared on the date of distribution of the instant dividend procedure and raised an objection to the total amount of the dividend distributed by the Defendant HanB, among the dividend distributed by the Defendant Han-B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 2, 3, 4 evidence, Eul 2, 2, 3 and 4 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the main defense of Defendant HanB’s main defense

Although Defendant AB’s dividends against Defendant AB among the instant distribution schedule, even if the dividends against the Defendant AB were unfair, the dividends against the Defendant AB shall be distributed to the Defendant’s Republic of Korea who requested the distribution of the amount of credit as a senior seizure authority, and there is no amount to be distributed in addition to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant lawsuit was instituted by a person who has no standing to sue, and thus, is unlawful. However, the obligor who raised an objection against the distribution schedule is entitled to standing to sue, regardless of whether the amount to be distributed increases in the case of a lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution, and therefore, Defendant BB’s main safety objection is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant HanB did not acquire OOOO Won from among the cargo transport bonds that CCC has against DD Shipping, and thus, it is a processed claim. Even if the above acquisition-price claim exists, the plaintiff was certified on November 3, 201 as to the assignment of claims, which the CCC acquired with respect to DDD Shipping on the same day, and received the above certificate to DDD Shipping on the same day, which was first set forth in the notification of the seizure of claims by the defendant's Republic of Korea, and thus, the plaintiff was paid dividends in preference to the defendant's Republic of Korea in the distribution procedure of this case.

Therefore, the distribution schedule of this case must be revised as stated in the purport of the claim.

B. Determination

(1) Whether Defendant AB’s obligation exists

According to the purport of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and all pleadings, defendant Han-B lent OOOB to EE Co., Ltd. on December 28, 2009, and CCC guaranteed the above debt, but it was recognized that it transferred OOOB to defendant Han-B out of the cargo freight bonds held against DD Shipping on October 28, 201 for the repayment of the above debt. Thus, the existence of the defendant Han-B's claim for acquisition of the debt is recognized.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that there is no claim for acquisition by transfer of the defendant HanB is without merit.

Doz. Whether the plaintiff's claim takes precedence over the defendant's claim

In a case where there is a third party in a position that is incompatible with the assignee of nominative claim, if the assignee of the claim first satisfies all the requirements for setting up against the third party such as notification or acceptance by the certificate on the fixed date under Article 450(2) of the Civil Code before acquiring such status, the assignee of the claim may oppose the assignment of claim. In this context, the "notification or acceptance by the certificate on the fixed date" means that notification or acceptance must be the document with the fixed date itself. Further, the "fixed date" refers to the date recognized as the fixed date by the law, such as Article 3 of the Addenda of the Civil Code, and Article 3(4) of the Addenda of the Civil Code provides that "the date on which the document proves and enters what matters in the private document by the public office or by the date on which the document is entered in the authentic date" (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da49469, Jul. 14, 201).

The Plaintiff is a transferee of a nominative claim, which CCC holds with respect to DD Shipping, and there is no doubt that the Defendant Republic of Korea falls under the above third party as a creditor who seized the above claim. However, even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion itself, CCC only obtained a certificate of assignment of claims that it transfers the above claim to the Plaintiff, and the subsequent notification of assignment of claims did not receive a certification. Thus, even if the above certificate of assignment of claims was certified and delivered to DD Shipping, it cannot be deemed as a notification of the assignment of claims by a certificate with the fixed date, and there is no evidence to prove that it was made by a certificate with the fixed date

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim takes precedence over the defendant's claim in Korea is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as it is without merit.