In the event that a depositor makes a mixed deposit, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit against the defendant who is a seizure authority.

Whether the third debtor made a repayment deposit, whether the execution deposit is made, or whether the mixed deposit is made, shall be determined by comprehensively and reasonably considering whether the third debtor made the payment deposit, the basis of the deposit, the reason for the deposit, the reason for the report, the reason for the deposit, etc.

Article 208(3)2 of the Civil Procedure Act

Ulsan District Court 2017dan54769 Confirmation of the claim for withdrawal of deposits

00

Republic of Korea Overseas

November 28, 2018

December 12, 2018

1. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is confirmed that the right to claim the payment of deposit money for KRW 86,976,285 deposited by the Ulsan District Court No. 4208 on October 22, 2015 between the Plaintiff and the Defendants was the Plaintiff.

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

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 31, 2015, Defendant B Co., Ltd. entered into a contract to transfer KRW 112,00,000 to Defendant BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “instant contract to transfer claims”) with the Plaintiff until September 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff delegated the power to notify the transfer by Defendant B Co., Ltd. to Nonparty B Co., Ltd. on September 23, 2015, who was delegated with the power to notify the transfer by Defendant B Co., Ltd., notified the Plaintiff and the claim to Nonparty B Co., Ltd. of the fact of the transfer (hereinafter referred to as “instant notification of the transfer of claims”) by indicating the transfer to Nonparty B Co., Ltd. as “12,00,000 won for the automobile parts to be received by Defendant B Co., Ltd. from A”) and the said notification reached A Co., Ltd. on September 24, 2015.

B. At that time, Nonparty A Co., Ltd. did not pay for Defendant BB Co., Ltd. amounted to KRW 86,976,285.

C. On September 30, 2015, Defendant BB Co., Ltd. (00) attached the claims against Defendant BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant BB”) and the third debtor Co., Ltd. (a), the claimed amount of KRW 355,101,360, additional charges of KRW 99,193,040, and the above notification of the attachment of claims reached Aa on October 2, 2015.

D. Defendant C received the decision of provisional seizure of the claim amounting to KRW 154,130,225 on October 13, 2015 (Seoul District Court 2015Kahap916), which was rendered on October 15, 2015, Defendant C served on Defendant BB Co., Ltd., a garnishee, a debtor of the said claim amounting to KRW 154,130,225. The said decision of provisional seizure of the claim was served on Aa, a corporation, a debtor of the said claim amounting to KRW

E. Defendant D Co., Ltd. received the decision of provisional seizure of claims (Supplementary District Court Decision 2015Kahap927, Oct. 17, 2015) as of October 15, 2015, the amount of which is KRW 60,658,425, Defendant BB Co., Ltd., a third debtor Co., Ltd. and the amount of which is KRW 60,658,425. The decision of provisional seizure of claims was served on A, a Co., Ltd., a

F. There is a doubt as to whether the instant contract for the assignment of claims is legitimate because the amount of automobile parts that Defendant BBB must pay to the Defendant BB corporation is inconsistent with the amount of KRW 86,976,285, and the amount of KRW 112,00,000 that the Plaintiff acquired by the Plaintiff. After receiving the notice of the assignment of claims of this case, as seen earlier, the remaining Defendants’ notification of the seizure of claims and the decision of seizure of claims cannot be identified as legitimate creditors, as seen above, on October 22, 2015, the Ulsan District Court deposited the deposited person with Defendant BBB corporation or the Plaintiff as Defendant BB corporation or the Plaintiff, Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 291 of the Civil Execution Act, Article 86,976,285 of the Civil Execution Act (hereinafter referred to as “the deposit”).

G. On October 27, 2015 and April 16, 2016, Defendant BB Co., Ltd seized each of the claims for payment of deposit which he/she had against the Republic of Korea (the public official of the Ulsan District Court) in the deposit procedure.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 1 to 14, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits

"The defendant's Republic of Korea." On October 27, 2015 and April 16, 2016, as mentioned above, as to the defendant 2's right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit that the defendant 2 corporation will have against the Republic of Korea (U.S. District Court) during the above deposit procedure. If the plaintiff is confirmed to be a legitimate person under the relationship between the defendant 2 corporation and the transferee of the above deposit, it constitutes "documents proving that the plaintiff has the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit under Article 9 (1) of the Deposit Act and subparagraph 2 of Article 33 of the Deposit Rule," and since the plaintiff's right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit under the above 10-mentioned provisional seizure against the defendant 2 corporation, the defendant 2 corporation's right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit under the above 10-mentioned provisional seizure against the defendant 2 corporation, the transferee of the deposit of the above 6-mentioned bonds, the plaintiff's right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit under the above 10-mentioned provisional seizure against the defendant's right to claim the deposit.

A. If a claim has been transferred doublely, the order of priority between the assignee does not exist after the date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but after the debtor's recognition of the assignment of claim, that is, after the date and time of delivery of the notification of transfer with the fixed date or after the date of acceptance with the fixed date. This legal principle also applies to the case where the transferee and the executor of the provisional seizure order determines the right of priority between the assignee and the third obligor (in the case of the assignment of claim, by the obligor), the order of assignment of claim with the fixed date and the provisional seizure order shall be determined after the arrival of the original provisional seizure order to the third obligor (the obligor), and as seen above, the plaintiff is also entitled to seek confirmation of the above provisional seizure order against the plaintiff as well as the defendant 200. 5. 1. 2. 5. 2. 5. 1. 5. 1. 1. 5. 206 . 1. 205 . 2015 . 3. . 1. 5. 25. 25. 20. . 20. . 3. 1. 25. 20. 20. . . . . 25. . . . 20. . . . . . .

B. As to this, Defendant Republic of Korea asserted to the effect that the instant assignment contract was not specified, and that the instant assignment contract has no effect as a juristic act with false conspiracy or bad faith on the ground that its cause is unclear, and thus, the instant assignment contract has no effect as a juristic act with false conspiracy or bad faith, so it is not sufficient to recognize this only with health class and evidence submitted by

C. Defendant D Co., Ltd. asserted that the assignment of the claim of this case is a fraudulent act, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and it is valid before the cancellation even as it is a fraudulent act. Therefore, the above assertion is without merit.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.