A claim for payment of deposit shall be a matter to be confirmed between the deposited person and the executory creditor and may not be claimed for payment attached for reasons of a delinquent taxpayer or debtor.

The right to claim the payment of the deposit shall be determined by the time prior to the arrival of notification between the deposited person and the executory creditor, and the payment of the deposit may not be claimed against the attachment for the cause of the obligor or the defaulted taxpayer. In addition, a non-assignment agreement under the construction contract must be proved by a third party who has taken over the claim, who has known of, or has

§ 487. Condition and effect of deposit for performance under the Civil Code

Deposit of debtor's debt amount under Article 248 (3) of the Civil Execution Act

2014 Ghana 519491 Action for the Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

AA Public Credit Group Co., Ltd.

1. AACo. 2. BB Bank; 3.CC et al.

4.Korea 5.D

November 21, 2014

December 12, 2014

1. The plaintiff's lawsuits against the defendantCC, Korea, and D are all dismissed.

2. It is confirmed that between the Plaintiff, Defendant AAA Public Corporation, and BB bank, EE Integrated Construction Corporation, on August 31, 2009, the Plaintiff has the right to claim for payment of deposit money against OOO won deposited by OOOO under the FOOOO in 2009.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff, Defendant AA Public Corporation, and BB Bank is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff, DefendantCC, Korea, and DD are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

On August 31, 2009, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff and the Defendants have the right to claim for payment of deposit money against the OOO Won deposited by the OOOOO district court in 2009.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant AAA Public Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "AA Public Project") was in progress on April 25, 2008 under a subcontract for the O A-2BL apartment construction work from the EE General Construction Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "E Construction"), and was in default on November 1, 2008. (b) The defendant A Public Project transferred the claim for construction payment to the plaintiff on November 14, 2008, and notified the transfer of the above claim to EE Construction on the same day, and reached the EE Construction on November 17, 2008.

C. On November 18, 2008, Defendant BB bank (hereinafter “BB bank expenses”) received a provisional attachment order with the OO district court 2008KadanOOOOO as to the claim for construction price against EE construction of Defendant AA public. The provisional attachment order reached EE construction on November 21, 2008.

D. On August 31, 2009, EE Construction deposited the claims transfer notification and the provisional attachment notification as above with respect to the claims for the construction cost of Defendant AA’s public service, and the deposited parties were jointly deposited with the Plaintiff and the Defendant AA’s public service with the OOOOOO in gold Order 2009. EE Construction stated Article 291 and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the deposit for repayment under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act on the deposit for repayment and the provisional attachment of the Defendant BB bank’s claims (hereinafter “instant deposit”). Furthermore, it stated that there was a non-assignment agreement on the claims for the construction cost of Defendant A public service as to the fact of the deposit cause, and that the Plaintiff’s assignment notification of claims and the provisional attachment against the Defendant B bank were competing with each other (hereinafter “EE Construction”).

E. On March 23, 2010, DefendantCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “CC”) received a claim attachment and collection order against the OOOO as the OO district court 2010 TOOOOO of the instant deposit payment claim from Defendant AA public.

F. On August 16, 2011, Defendant Republic of Korea (○○○ Tax Office) seized Defendant AA’s claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit against the OO of the amount in arrears of national taxes.

(g) On May 14, 2013, Defendant DA attached the amount of delinquent corporate tax to the OOO of the claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit of Defendant AA public service.” [Grounds for recognition] Between the Plaintiff and Defendant A public service: Articles 208(3)12 and 150(3)(self-recognition) of the Civil Procedure Act

Between the Plaintiff and the remaining Defendants: Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 5 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the lawfulness of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against DefendantCC, Korea, and DD

In the context of a mixed deposit, the deposit is made under the responsibility and judgment of the depositor. The depositor may choose the deposit for repayment, the execution, or the mixed deposit in accordance with his/her own will. Whether the depositor has made any kind of deposit or not shall be determined by comprehensively and reasonably considering whether the deposited person is designated, the statutory provisions that provide the basis of the deposit, the fact of the cause of deposit, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006DaOOOOOOOOOOOOO). In addition, in the context of the mixed deposit, the deposit is made not only to the deposited person, but also to the execution creditor, including the provisional seizure creditor, for the purpose of recognizing the claim for withdrawal of the deposited goods. In light of this purport, it is insufficient that the deposited person has a document proving that the claim for withdrawal of the deposited goods has been made only in relation to the other deposited person, and also to the above execution creditor's relation with the above execution creditor's claim for payment of the deposited goods.

In the instant case, it is reasonable to view that the deposit of this case is not only the repayment deposit but also the mixed deposit with the nature of the enforcement deposit in comprehensive consideration of the legal provisions as stated in the ground for the deposit and the statement of the cause of the deposit, and further the circumstances leading to the deposit of this case. However, as seen earlier, DefendantCC, the Republic of Korea, and D Si did not attach the construction payment claim for Defendant AAA EE construction, but only attached the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case after the deposit of this case. Accordingly, it is sufficient for the Plaintiff to obtain the confirmation of the right to claim the payment of the deposit against Defendant BB bank, the execution creditor of the deposit of this case. Furthermore, there is no benefit to seek the confirmation of the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case against DefendantCC, the Republic of Korea, and D Si, who are not the execution creditor, and the execution creditor of the deposit of this case, as well as the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case (the plaintiff's right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case cannot be confirmed).

Therefore, all of the lawsuits filed by the Plaintiff against DefendantCC, Korea, and D are unlawful.

3. Determination as to the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant AA public and BB bank

A. In a case where a claim is transferred twice, the order between the assignee is not determined by the prior date of the fixed date attached to the notification or consent, but by the debtor’s recognition of the assignment of claim, that is, by the date and time when the notification of the transfer with the fixed date reaches the debtor or after the date and time of the consent with the fixed date. This legal doctrine applies to a case where the transferee and the assignee of the provisional seizure order determines the heat between the obligor and the same claim, so the order of assignment with the transfer with the fixed date and the provisional seizure order should be determined by the method after the arrival of the garnishee of the original copy of the provisional seizure order (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93DaOOOO, Apr. 26, 19

According to the above facts of recognition, the construction cost of Defendant AA’s EE Construction, the assignment of claims, and the provisional attachment against the claims, but the notification of the assignment of claims with the fixed date reaches the EE Construction, which is the third debtor, which is the third debtor, so the right to claim payment of the deposit money of this case shall be deemed to be the

B. Meanwhile, DefendantCC, Korea, Defendant AAA’s public service and EE Construction concluded a subcontract construction agreement prohibiting the assignment of the claim for construction price at the time of entering into the subcontract construction agreement, and the Plaintiff acquired it with knowledge of, or without gross negligence, that there was a non-assignment agreement, and thus, the Plaintiff asserted that the transfer of the claim between the Plaintiff and Defendant AA’

The obligor may set up against a transferee who knows the existence of a special agreement on the transfer of a claim where a third party acquires the claim from the obligee, or who is gross negligence with the knowledge of the existence of such special agreement, and the gross negligence here means that the existence of such special agreement is not known because he/she does not know the existence of such special agreement, even though he/she does not exercise a considerable attention to the extent required by the ordinary person, if the existence of such special agreement is not easily known, and a third party’s bad faith or gross negligence must be asserted and proved by the person who intends to set up against the assignee with such special agreement on the transfer of claim (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 200DaO00, Jan. 24, 200). In addition, if the assignee does not know the existence of such special agreement in the form of a non-transfer of claim, such as the exercise of the non-transfer of the claim, and even if the transferee does not know the existence of such special agreement in the form of a non-transfer of the claim, it can be easily recognized that the transferee does not know the existence of the special agreement.

In light of the above legal principles, although Article 6 (1) of the Subcontract Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract for the Construction Contract to be transferred or succeeded to a third party, it is stipulated that the contract cannot be transferred or succeeded to the rights or obligations arising from the subcontract to the third party, it cannot be readily concluded that the plaintiff could have easily known if he knew or paid due attention to the existence of the special contract for the prohibition of transfer of the Construction Contract

4. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's lawsuit against defendantCC, Korea, and D is dismissed in its entirety as it is unlawful. The plaintiff's claim against defendant AAA public and BB bank shall be accepted in its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.