Furthermore, even if the repayment did not take effect due to the illegal repayment deposit, the deposited goods can be recovered by accepting the seizure and collection order against the depositer's right to claim the recovery of deposited goods based on other claims against the depositer instead of demanding the withdrawal of deposited goods.

Meanwhile, since the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods and the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods are separate claims independent of each other, even if there was seizure of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods, this does not affect the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods.

1. The court below determined that the Re-Appellant's exercise of the right to claim the recovery of deposit money by accepting a separate claim attachment and collection order against the depositor's right to claim the recovery of deposit money without exercising the right to claim the recovery of deposit money is not allowed unless the depositor's right to claim the recovery is infringed upon the depositor's right to claim the recovery of deposit, and thus, the Re-Appellant's decision that the claim for recovery of deposit money was not accepted was not erroneous.

2. However, we cannot accept the judgment of the court below for the following reasons.

A. Where the deposit for repayment is legitimate, the repayment takes effect when the creditor made the deposit, regardless of whether the creditor made a claim for the withdrawal of the deposited article, but where the deposited article is recovered by the execution of the order of seizure and collection regarding the claim for withdrawal of the deposited article with the title of execution of separate claim held by a third party including the deposited person against the deposited person, the effect of the extinguishment of the claim becomes retroactively null and void (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 80Da77, Feb. 10, 1981; 2013Da21295, May 29, 2014).

Furthermore, even if the repayment did not take effect due to the illegal repayment deposit, the deposited goods can be recovered by accepting the seizure and collection order against the depositer's right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods based on other claims against the depositer instead of demanding the withdrawal of deposited goods.

Meanwhile, since the right to claim the return of deposited goods and the right to claim the return of deposited goods are separate claims independent of each other, even if there was seizure of the right to claim the return of deposited goods, this does not affect the right to claim the return of deposited goods.

B. The reasoning of the lower judgment and the evidence duly admitted reveal the following.

1) The debtor deposited a repayment deposit with the re-appellant with respect to the obligation to be borne according to the final determination of the amount of the lawsuit costs finalized (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”).

2) Korea received a provisional attachment decision (hereinafter “the provisional attachment decision of this case”) against the Re-Appellant’s right to claim payment of the deposit money of this case, and the Re-Appellant received a seizure and collection order against the depositor’s right to claim payment of the deposit money of this case based on other claims against the obligor (depositor).

3) Although the Re-Appellant filed a claim for recovery of the deposit of this case as a collection right holder, the deposit manager decided to accept the claim for recovery due to the decision of provisional seizure of this case.

C. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, it is reasonable to view that the re-appellant may seize and collect the right to claim the recovery of the deposited money of this case as a compulsory execution procedure to obtain the satisfaction of other claims. Moreover, the provisional attachment decision of this case cannot be deemed as effective against the right to claim the recovery of the deposited money of this case, which is an independent right separate from the right to claim the recovery of the deposited money of this case. Therefore, as long as there exists a reason to claim the recovery of deposited money under Article 489(1) of the Civil Act, and the re-appellant falls under the right to claim the recovery of deposited money of this case, the disposition of the deposit trustee who has not accepted the claim for the recovery of deposited money of this case is unlawful.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise on the grounds indicated in its reasoning that the Re-Appellant’s claim for recovery of the instant deposit was lawful. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the claim for recovery of deposited goods and the relationship between the claim for recovery of deposited goods and the claim for collection of deposited goods, and the seizure and collection order, thereby adversely affecting the conclusion of the judgment. The grounds for reappeal pointing this out

However, according to the records, since the circumstance seems to exist when the court of execution started the distribution procedure for the claim for recovery of the deposit of this case on the grounds of concurrent seizure, the court below should verify whether the circumstance is recognized and also examine whether the objection of this case of this case is beneficial (see Supreme Court Order 2000Ma2605, Jun. 5, 2001, etc.).

3. Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Noh Tae-tae (Presiding Justice)