The deposit payment claim is vested in the creditor who has given the notice with the most fixed date first.

In case where a garnishee deposits the amount of monetary claim which has been executed provisionally after provisional seizure of the claim, the effect of such provisional seizure is not against the obligor's right to claim for withdrawal against the amount of deposit equivalent to the amount of the claim, so in case where the obligor makes a mixed deposit on the ground that it is impossible for the obligee to make it, the right to claim for withdrawal of the deposit belongs to the obligee who has given the notice with

2012 Confirmation of a claim for payment of deposit money 84690

JAAA

BBBBE et al. 14 persons

April 3, 2013

May 8, 2013

1. On August 28, 2012,CC Heavy Industries Co., Ltd. confirms that the Plaintiff has the right to claim payment of deposit payment of KRW 000 out of the total amount of KRW 000 deposited by Suwon District Court Decision 2012 Gold 1246.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. Defendant BBBN Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant BBBBN”) entered into a contract for goods supply with theCC Heavy Industries (hereinafter “CC Heavy Industries”) around January 7, 201, and around June 30, 201, Defendant BBN entered into a contract for goods supply with the company around June 30, 201. Defendant BBBN on the goods purchase price claim forCC Heavy Industries (hereinafter “the instant claim”).

B. As to the instant claims, the Plaintiff, Defendant DDD Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant DD”), Defendant EE (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant EE”), Defendant FFwratan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant FFwra”), Defendant NHG, Defendant HH HH Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant HHHH”), Defendant KimO, KimO, KimO, and Defendant OOOOOO (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant OOOOO”), and Defendant OOOOOOO Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “DefendantOOOO”), and Defendant Korea received seizure and collection orders, and claims assignment and assignment orders as listed below.

(The following table omitted):

C. On August 26, 2012, under Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act and Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 487 of the Civil Act, the term “CC Heavy Industries” deposited KRW 000,000, as a gold No. 1248, in Suwon District Court’s Eunpyeong Housing Site Board in 2012, on the grounds that the instant claim, the assignment order, the assignment order, etc. are concurrent (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

[Reasons for Recognition]

OOOOO, HH, the Republic of Korea, OO, and Frest: The non-sovered facts, Gap evidence 1 through 7, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

O The remaining Defendants: Judgment on the grounds of the claim on the confession (Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act) 2.

A. In cases where a claim is transferred doublely, the friendship between the assignees shall be determined by the date of receipt of the notification of transfer on the ground that the assignment of claim becomes final and conclusive, or by the date and time of acceptance with the fixed date, and such legal doctrine also applies in cases where the transferee of the claim and the person executing the provisional seizure or seizure order determine the heat between the assignee of the claim and the person executing the provisional seizure or seizure order (see, e.g., Supreme Court en banc Decision 93Da2423, Apr. 26, 1994). Meanwhile, in cases where the third obligor deposits the amount of the pecuniary claim provisionally seized after the provisional seizure of the claim, the effect of the provisional seizure is not limited to the obligor's right to demand payment on the amount of deposit equivalent to the amount of the claim (Article 297 of the Civil Execution Act), and where the obligor or the third obligor (in cases of the seizure of the claim, etc.) together with the reasons for the provisional seizure of the claim, the right to demand payment of the deposit shall be reverted to the obligee with the most fixed date.

B. Meanwhile, as seen earlier, the deposit in this case constitutes a mixed deposit, and in terms of its enforcement deposit, the deposit in this case is deposited not only for the deposited parties but also for the enforcement creditor, and in light of its purport, it is insufficient that the deposited parties have a document proving that the deposited parties have the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods only in relation to the other deposited parties, and in relation to the enforcement creditor, the document proving that the deposited parties have the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods should be prepared and submitted (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012). Accordingly, the Plaintiff has a benefit to seek the confirmation in relation to the Defendants as well as the Defendants, the enforcement creditor, as well as the Defendants, who are the other deposited parties (the same applies to the Defendants in relation to which the designated parties have not been withdrawn on the date for pleading without submitting a written reply).

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's right to claim payment of KRW 000 among the deposit money of this case belongs to the plaintiff, and there are interests in confirmation, and each claim against the defendants of this case against the plaintiff is justified, and it is decided as per Disposition.