1. After recognizing the facts as stated in its reasoning, the court below acknowledged the following facts. If the court deposited an application for the suspension of compulsory execution under a joint name with an order that the applicant shall deposit it as a joint guarantee for the respondent instead of individually ordering the security provision, the ownership and proportion of the right to claim the recovery of the deposit should be determined according to the real relation that the applicant bears the fund in the internal relationship. Therefore, the deposit holder who actually contributed the full amount of the deposit can claim the recovery of the deposit with another depositor by exercising the right to claim the recovery of the deposit against the other depositor by exercising the right to

In addition, even if a creditor against one of the joint depositors attaches the right to claim the recovery of deposit, if the right to claim the recovery of deposit belongs to another depositor, the right to claim the recovery of deposit can not be deemed to belong to the execution obligor as much as the right to claim the recovery of deposit or the right to claim the recovery of deposit is divided by the number of joint depositors in relation to the execution obligee. Thus, the creditor who claims the right to claim the recovery of deposit belongs to himself/herself cannot oppose the execution obligee who seizes the right to claim the recovery of deposit by proving the circumstance such as that the right to claim the recovery of deposit belongs to himself/herself in full as the other deposit obligor. Accordingly, in this case, the right to claim the recovery of deposit due to the cancellation of the security against the deposit of this case made under the joint name of the Plaintiff and B shall belong to the plaintiff who made the full contribution of the deposit money, and in this case the deposit money of this case