In a judicial deposit for security, a person holding a right to the security has the same right as a pledgee for the security, but as one of the methods of exercising the security right, where a person holding a right to the security claims claims the refund of the deposit after obtaining an attachment and assignment order for the right to claim the refund of the deposit, the assignment order shall become final and conclusive and conclusive.

According to the records, the applicant for cancellation of this case was sentenced to the judgment of the court of first instance against the re-appellant who is the plaintiffs of this case's building name lawsuit, the first instance court of the above lawsuit against the re-appellant ordering compensation for damages equivalent to the rent of the building on December 20, 2005, and the Re-Appellant deposited KRW 1 million as the guarantee of the suspension of compulsory execution on February 17, 2006 to the applicant for cancellation of the above provisional execution and was decided to suspend compulsory execution based on the original copy of the judgment of the first instance court of the above provisional execution until the appellate court rendered a judgment. The court of appeal of the above lawsuit established conciliation which included the payment of the overdue rent, etc. to the applicant for cancellation. Since the re-appellant did not pay the overdue rent, the applicant for cancellation of the security was subject to the seizure and assignment order for the right to claim the recovery deposit based on the original copy of the above conciliation protocol, and then the re-appellant did not object to the application for cancellation of this case.

However, there was no certificate, etc. that the assignment order became final and conclusive on the record, and there is room to deem that the above assignment order has no effect since it became final and conclusive (the reappeal asserted that the reappeal was not served with the above assignment order). However, the lower court received the application for cancellation of the instant security on the premise that the above assignment order becomes effective. In so doing, the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the validity of the assignment order and the cancellation of the security, thereby adversely affecting the judgment.

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 Kim Hwang-sik (Presiding Justice)