[2] The case where a person can immediately claim the return of deposit money by civil procedure without going through the procedure under the Deposit Act

[3] In case where a separate seizure or provisional seizure is made against the right of a debtor of provisional seizure deposited under a joint name to recover the amount of deposit for marine disaster, whether the deposit officer can report the reason under Article 248 (4) of the Civil Execution Act (affirmative)

[2] It is unfair for a deposit officer to enforce the procedures prescribed by the Deposit Act until the deposit officer's claim is clearly accepted in excess of the scope of formal review authority of the deposit officer. In such a case, even if the deposit officer did not go through the procedures prescribed by the Deposit Act, it can be claimed as a civil lawsuit to return the deposit money immediately without going through the procedures prescribed by the Deposit Act.

[3] The provisional seizure debtor's right to claim the recovery of the deposit of the deposit of the provisional seizure debtor under a joint name shall be based on a single provisional seizure deposit procedure, and the deposit public official who is outside the formal examination authority shall be deemed to have the right to claim the deposit of each debtor of the provisional seizure, which is a separate right, even if a separate seizure or provisional seizure has been made, such right shall be deemed the competition of seizure and shall be deemed to have

2. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are all dismissed.

3. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

2. The defendant Republic of Korea shall pay to the plaintiffs 350,000,000 won with 2% interest per annum from February 4, 2003 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% interest per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

The following facts may be acknowledged, either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 8 (including paper numbers, Eul evidence No. 1-1, Eul evidence No. 1-2, Eul evidence No. 3, the same as Eul evidence No. 12), Eul evidence No. 1, 2 (including paper numbers), and the whole purport of the pleadings.

A. On November 5, 2001, Defendant Southern-si entered into a contract with the Plaintiff’s signature accommodation to exchange the said Plaintiff’s bathing room with the 238-1 Seoul-dong, Gyeyang-dong, Seoul-dong, Seoul-dong, Seoul-dong, 201, the second floor of 201, and the second floor of 201, the second floor of the 238-1, Seoul-dong, Seoul-dong, which is owned by the said Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant bathing hall”), and the said Defendant’s name and the transfer registration were completed. However, the instant bathing hall was suspended from the Plaintiff’s signature accommodation on May 23, 2002 and the implementation of the said exchange contract was closed.

B. On December 18, 2002, the Plaintiff’s assistant intervenor, Kim Jong-nam, Lee Young-nam, Yangyang-hun, Handong-hun, and Kim Young-hee (hereinafter “Seoul-do, etc.”) asserted on November 29, 2002 that the Plaintiffs (the husband of the Plaintiff’s signatory’s signatory’s signatory’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s husband’s claim for a provisional attachment of each real estate owned by the Plaintiffs and Defendant Southern-do’s husband’s husband’s husband’s claim amounting KRW 350 million.

C. The plaintiffs prepared KRW 350,000,000 and requested the Gangwon-do Governor of the Certified Judicial Scriveners to file an application for the cancellation of execution due to the deposit in the order of provisional seizure of this case. On February 4, 2003, the employees Park Dong Branch of the above Certified Judicial Scriveners Office stated that not only the plaintiffs but also the defendant Southern-si (no person was requested to file an application for provisional seizure from the defendant Nam-si, nor was he received the deposit) in the deposit of KRW 350,00,000 delivered from the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "deposit of this case"). Accordingly, on February 5, 2003, the court revoked the provisional seizure of this case as well as the execution of the provisional seizure of this case owned by the plaintiffs (hereinafter referred to as the "the provisional seizure of this case"). < Amended by Act No. 6304, Feb. 3, 2003>

D. On February 6, 2003, Kim Jong-Un et al. filed a lawsuit against the plaintiffs and the defendant Nam-si branch of the Seoul District Court for the return of the lease deposit amount of KRW 350 million against the plaintiffs and the defendant Nam-si. On December 5, 2003, the above court rendered a decision to dismiss all the claims against the plaintiffs (one rejection of the damages for delay), but at the same time, the court rendered a decision to revoke the provisional attachment decision against the plaintiffs among the provisional attachment decision of this case (2003Kahap1210) and the above decisions became final and conclusive around that time.

E. According to the above original copy of the judgment with executory power over the defendant Southern-si (the same court 2003Gahap1210, the same court 2003Gahap1210), Kim Jong-si et al. applied for a seizure and assignment order as to the right to claim for recovery of deposit money of this case against the defendant South-do, South-do, the provisional attachment on February 2, 2004 (the provisional attachment on the above court 2002Kahap2389, the above court 2002Kahap2389) and received a seizure and assignment order (the Seoul East Eastern District Court 2004 Tadan374, the "the provisional attachment and assignment order of this case"), and this order was served on the defendant Republic of Korea (the public official under jurisdiction of the Seoul East Eastern District Court : the public official under jurisdiction) who is the debtor on February 6, 2004.

F. However, the deposit officer of the Seoul East Eastern District Court at the Seoul Eastern District Court at the time of delivery of the claim for the collection of the amount of the deposit of this case against the plaintiff's movement-based claim for the provisional seizure of the claim for the collection of the amount of the deposit of this case (the creditor's contribution, the debtor's moving owner, the provisional seizure amount of KRW 50 million, the Seoul Southern District Court's branch court 2003Kadan32141, Dec. 30, 2003, the delivery date), and as above, the right to claim for the collection of the amount of the deposit of this case against the defendant Namnam-si by Kim Jong-si, etc. was seized and all (the seizure amount of KRW 350 million, the delivery date of the provisional seizure amount of KRW 350 million, Feb. 6, 2004) and reported the distribution procedure to the Seoul East Eastern District Court on February 9, 2004.

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' action against the defendant Southern-si

The plaintiffs did not request the senior judicial scrivener of South and North Korea to cancel the execution of provisional seizure on the real estate owned by them or contributed to the provisional seizure release deposit, and there is no claim to recover the deposit from South and North Korea. The right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the provisional seizure of this case belongs to the plaintiffs who contributed to the full amount of KRW 350 million from the provisional seizure of this case. Thus, the plaintiffs' right to claim the non-existence of the right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the provisional seizure of this case against the defendant South and North Korea.

In the case of the provisional seizure deposit in the name of the joint deposit, if there is no difference in the execution of the provisional seizure decision on the real estate of the provisional seizure debtor stated in the joint deposit, even if some of the joint deposit debtors of the provisional seizure are requested to cancel the provisional seizure or did not contribute the provisional seizure deposit, it cannot be said that there is no right to claim the collection of the provisional seizure deposit against all of the joint deposit debtors of the provisional seizure, and as long as the provisional seizure deposit was made under the joint deposit, it cannot be seen that there is a right to claim the collection of the provisional seizure deposit against all of the joint deposit debtors of the provisional seizure specified in the joint deposit holders.

Furthermore, since the provisional seizure deposit has become the joint name, the right to claim the collection of the deposit for the provisional seizure does not belong to the joint deposit between the debtors of the provisional seizure entered in the joint deposit, and the debtors of the provisional seizure deposited in the joint name hold the right to claim the collection of the deposit for the provisional seizure as separate rights. Therefore, the creditor of the provisional seizure can have the right to claim the collection of the deposit for the provisional seizure effectively and entirely by the title of one debtor of the provisional seizure.

As seen earlier, there is no need to request the cancellation of the execution of provisional seizure to the senior judicial scrivener of South and North Korea, and there is no amount of deposit for provisional seizure. However, as long as it is evident that the defendant except the plaintiffs at the time of the provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional deposit was made by stating it as the deposit holder of South and North America, it cannot be said that there is no right to claim the recovery of the deposit for provisional seizure. As seen earlier, as long as Kim Jong-si et al. seized the right to claim the recovery of the deposit for provisional seizure from North and South Korea, it shall be deemed that the right to claim the recovery of the deposit for provisional seizure has been transferred

Therefore, a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the absence of the right to claim the deposit against the defendant South and North America is seeking confirmation of the past legal relationship before the seizure and assignment order as against the person who did not retain the right to claim the recovery of deposit. Therefore, it is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

3. Determination on the plaintiffs' claims against Defendant Republic of Korea

A. Determination on this safety defense

Defendant Republic of Korea shall first file a lawsuit against the deposited public official to recover the deposit and if the deposited public official refuses to accept the deposit, the procedure of appeal under the Deposit Act shall be followed, and only after the implementation of such procedure, it shall be possible to file a lawsuit to seek the return of the deposit directly against the State. However, the Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit to seek the return of the deposit by civil procedure without going through such procedure. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant Republic of Korea is unlawful.

However, it is unfair to enforce the procedures prescribed in the Deposit Act even in cases where the request for the return of deposit against the deposited public official exceeds the scope of the formal review authority of the deposited public official, and in such cases, even if the deposited public official is not in compliance with the procedures prescribed in the Deposit Act, it is possible to demand the return of deposit money by civil litigation. As such, as in the case of this case, the legitimacy of the sole request for the return of deposit money among the deposit holders who made a provisional seizure provisional seizure provisional seizure deposit exceeds the scope of the formal review authority of the deposited public official as a matter of the ownership and exercise of the right to claim the deposit money between the deposit holders. Therefore, even if the claim for the return against the deposited public official is filed without going through the procedures prescribed in the Deposit Act, it cannot be deemed unlawful even if the plaintiffs seek the return of deposit money by civil litigation without going through the procedures prescribed in the Deposit Act, and therefore,

B. Judgment on the merits

The defendant's Republic of Korea has provisional seizure against the plaintiff's right to claim for recovery of the amount of the amount of the deposit from South and North Korea on the ground that there exists a seizure and assignment order against the defendant's right to claim for recovery of the amount of the deposit from South and North Korea, so the defendant's right to claim for recovery of the amount of the deposit from South and North Korea coincide with each other, so the defendant's right to claim for recovery of the amount of the deposit from South and North Korea, so long as there is a reason report, the plaintiff's right to claim for collection of the amount of the deposit from South and North Korea can only be claimed with his right to claim for the amount of the deposit from North Korea. The plaintiff's right to claim for recovery of the amount of the deposit from South and North Korea on the ground that (1) there is no right to claim for recovery of the amount of the deposit from South and North Korea, and (2) there is no reason to claim for collection of the amount of the deposit from North Korea from North Korea to the plaintiff's right to claim for provisional seizure.

First of all, with regard to the above (1), it cannot be deemed that there is no right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the sea against the defendant Southern-si, as seen earlier, and the right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the sea shall not be deemed to have been jointly reverted to the joint depositors, and the right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the sea against the provisional seizure deposited under the joint name shall not be deemed to have been subject to seizure and all. Furthermore, even if the provisional seizure obligor's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the provisional seizure deposit under the joint name was separately seized or provisionally seized by the procedures of a single provisional seizure and the provisional seizure obligor's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from each provisional seizure obligor, the provisional seizure obligor's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the provisional seizure shall be deemed to be competition

Next, with regard to the above (2), the provisional seizure order against the plaintiff's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the plaintiff's movement caution was served before the seizure and assignment order against the defendant's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the plaintiff's movement caution was served on the defendant's Republic of Korea. However, as seen earlier, since the plaintiffs and the defendant's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the plaintiff's movement caution's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the plaintiff's transfer caution's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the defendant's South and North Korea is separate right, it cannot be said that the provisional seizure of the plaintiff's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the plaintiff's transfer caution's right to claim the assignment order does not affect the assignment order of the third debtor's right to claim the recovery of the deposit from the seizure-related monetary claim, and it cannot be said that the collection order or assignment order becomes a premise

Therefore, the plaintiffs' right to claim for recovery of deposit from the provisional seizure reported by reason under Article 248 (4) of the Civil Execution Act is extinguished as long as the defendant Republic of Korea has reported the reason under Article 248 (4) of the Civil Execution Act ( even if no separate deposit was made at this time, this is merely for the procedural convenience and thus the above reason report also takes effect as to the total amount of deposit from the provisional seizure reported by reason, since the above reason is deposit under Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act). The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendant Southern-si are unlawful and dismissed. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges fixed-type (Presiding Judge) Table of the class of lecture;