Notice of assignment of claims and a provisional seizure order being issued after the date of the original copy of the decision;

In determining the heating between the persons who executed an order of provisional seizure pursuant to a claim, the heating shall be determined by the notification of the transfer of claims with a fixed date and by the notification of provisional seizure after the arrival of the garnishee (in the case of a transfer of claims, after the debtor) of the original

Provisional Registration Security Act

Confirmation of Suwon District Court 2017Kadan4009 Deposit Withdrawal Claim

J**

Large**** Foreign Affairs

Korea asserts that the assignment of claims of this case is null and void as a false declaration of conspiracy;

The above defendant's circumstance that the assignment of claims of this case constitutes a false declaration of conspiracy.

Since it is difficult to determine otherwise, there is no other evidence to acknowledge this, the above assertion is not accepted.

(c)

4. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

November 08, 2017

on October 10, 2018

1. On July 5, 2013, the Suwon District Court confirmed that the claim for payment of deposit money of KRW 71,255,607, out of KRW 323,954,190 deposited by the Suwon District Court No. 7578 of 2013, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim payment of deposit money of KRW 71,25,607.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order of the Gu office.

1. Facts of recognition;

(a) Aado City Corporation, a project implementer for an urban development project for the second (redual area development project) of the calendar Zone North Korea, has accepted land and obstacles owned by BBF Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “BF”) incorporated in the said project site.

B. On August 25, 2010, the deceased Park C (hereinafter referred to as the “the deceased”) received a decision on provisional seizure of claims against the loan claim amounting to KRW 300,000,000 against the non-party company as to the loan claim amounting to KRW 300,00,000 against the non-party company. The above decision was served on the Aa City Corporation on August 30, 2010. On September 15, 2010, the non-party company transferred the claim amount for expropriation of obstacles against the Aa City Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “transfer of claims”), and sent the notice to the Ga City Corporation on September 30, 2010.

D. On January 4, 2011, the deceased filed a lawsuit against the non-party company seeking the payment of KRW 300,000,000 and damages for delay thereof (U.S. District Court 2010Gahap16062) and received the judgment. The judgment was finalized as it is. On January 7, 201, the deceased was served on the non-party company with a claim for a loan claim of KRW 374,794,520 against the non-party company (including delay damages) and received a provisional attachment order (U.S. District Court 2010 Ta30814) with respect to the claim for expropriation compensation against the non-party company Aa Urban Corporation. The above decision was served on the non-party company on January 7, 2011.

E. Meanwhile, on March 24, 2011, Defendant Republic of Korea seized the amount of KRW 95,403,280, out of the credit granted to Nonparty Company’s acceptance for Aa City Corporation, for reasons of delinquency in national taxes. The notification of the seizure was served on Aa City Corporation on March 31, 201, and 2) on December 14, 2011, seized KRW 327,936,520, out of the credit granted to Aa City Corporation’s acceptance compensation for Nonparty Company’s payment of national taxes on KRW 327,936,520, among the credit granted to Aa City Corporation. The notification of the seizure was served on Aa City Corporation on December 19, 2011.

F. On July 5, 2013, aa city Corporation deposited KRW 323,954,190 of the expropriation compensation for the obstacles of a non-party company, as depositee, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, on the ground that multiple seizures of the deceased, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and the Republic of Korea conflict with the assignment of claims, including the Plaintiff, the Defendant, etc., and the transfer of claims, pursuant to Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

G. Meanwhile, on January 16, 2014, Aa city Corporation deposited KRW 47,050,740,740 of the expropriation compensation for the real estate owned by the non-party company with the Suwon District Court No. 446 on the grounds as above, and the distribution procedure was commenced under the title of 2014ta7051. The deceased received KRW 47,301,417, which is the total amount to be actually distributed out of the deposit money and interest, on December 12, 2016, as the collection authority based on the order of seizure and collection of claims by the above Suwon District Court No. 2010,301,417.

H. As the Deceased died on March 16, 2017, Parkdd’s son solely inherited his claim against the non-party company of the Deceased.

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

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Relevant legal principles

Although there is no restriction on the transfer of a claim provisionally seized, a transferee who has taken over a claim provisionally seized shall be deemed to have taken over a claim in a state in which the right is restricted by such provisional seizure. In addition, where a creditor acquires a title of debt by winning a lawsuit on the merits of the decision on provisional seizure of claim, etc., the assignment of claim to the transferee who has taken over a claim in a state in which the right is restricted by provisional seizure shall become invalid (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da59033, Apr. 26, 2002

On the other hand, in the case of a double transfer of claims, the creditor's perception of the assignment of claims is not determined by the notice or consent after the date of the fixed date attached to the notice or consent, but by the debtor;

In other words, the notice of transfer with a fixed date shall be determined by the date of receipt of the debtor or by the date and time of acceptance with a fixed date, and such legal principle also applies to cases where the person executing an order of provisional seizure on the same claim as the transferee of the claim determines a heat between the person executing an order of provisional seizure. Thus, the notice of assignment with a fixed

The court shall decide on the heat of the debtor after the arrival of the debtor (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994).

B. Review of the instant case

After the Suwon District Court 2010Kadan102296 delivered a provisional attachment order to Aa City Corporation, the Plaintiff acquired the claim for expropriation of obstacles to Aa City Corporation from the non-party company. The Deceased acquired the title of debt by winning the claim claim of provisional attachment order of KRW 300,00,000,00. The Deceased participated in the claim of the above claim of KRW 300,000,00 and obtained the title of debt in the lawsuit. The Deceased shall participate in the claim attachment and collection order of KRW 2014,7051 and received KRW 47,301,417 out of the claim of provisional attachment order of KRW 205, KRW 305, KRW 205, KRW 305, KRW 705, KRW 307, KRW 9705, KRW 97, KRW 205, KRW 307, KRW 407, KRW 975, KRW 975, KRW 205, KRW 3075, KRW 197,5375,2975,5,2975, etc.

3. Judgment on the assertion by Defendant Republic of Korea