2. The Korea ○○ Corporation;

3. Korea;

4. ○○ City;

5. ○○ Accounting Corporation.

6. B architect office;

7.CC architect office;

8. D architect offices;

9. E certified architect office;

10.F architect office;

11. G architect office;

12. ○ engineering;

13. ○ Engineering Korea

14. ○○-gu

15. ○ Development Company;

2. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff the right to claim the payment of deposit money for KRW 17,128,817 deposited by the KH Bank No. 11728 in 2015 at this Court on June 3, 2015.

3. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendants listed in Nos. 1. through 14 in the separate list of the Defendant, it is confirmed that the Plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of deposit amounting to KRW 10,397,764 deposited by HH Bank as gold No. 11732 in June 3, 2015.

4. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Defendants.

Cheong-gu Office

The same shall apply to the order.

A. The background leading up to the conclusion of the monetary claim trust contract as of November 27, 2009;

On November 23, 2009, Defendant ○○ Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant ○○ Investment”) opened an enterpriseMDA deposit account (Account Number 000-000-0003, deposit amount to 75 billion won; hereinafter referred to as “first account”) in the HH bank (hereinafter referred to as “HH bank”), and received a loan of KRW 850 billion from the lender composed of the Plaintiff, etc. on November 27, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as “first loan”), and on the same day, in order to secure the above debt, Defendant ○○ Investment Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Defendant ○○ Investment”) entered into a trust contract with the Plaintiff on the deposit claims in this case and all rights incidental thereto (hereinafter referred to as “trust contract”).

On November 27, 2009, Defendant ○○ Investment notified the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff entrusted the instant first account deposit claim to HH Bank. On the same day, Defendant ○○ Investment received from HH bank the consent of the fixed date copy of the said trust.

(b) The background leading up to the conclusion of the monetary claim trust contract as of November 29, 2010;

On November 24, 2010, ○○○ Investment Co., Ltd. opened a corporate MFA deposit account (Account Number 000-000-0004, Account Number 45.885 billion won; hereinafter referred to as “the second account”) with HH bank. On November 29, 2010, it received a loan of KRW 65.5 billion from the lender composed of the Plaintiff, etc. (hereinafter referred to as “the second loan”). On the same day, it concluded a trust contract for monetary claims (hereinafter referred to as “the second trust contract”) with Defendant ○○ Investment Co., Ltd. for the purpose of securing the above loan obligation.

On November 29, 2010, Defendant ○○ Investment notified the Plaintiff that it entrusted the instant deposit claim of the instant second account with the H bank. On November 30, 2010, Defendant ○○ Investment obtained the consent of the H bank with the fixed date copy of the said trust.

(c) The background leading up to the conclusion of the monetary claim trust contract as of September 28, 2011;

on September 20, 201, ○○○○○○○○○○○○○ Investment opened a corporate MFA deposit account (Account Number 000-00-0002, Account Number 000-0000, Deposit Amount to KRW 25 billion; hereinafter referred to as the “third account of this case”). On September 28, 2011, it received a loan of KRW 364.2 billion from the lender composed of the Plaintiff, etc. (hereinafter referred to as the “third loan of this case”) from the lender, and on the same day, concluded a monetary trust contract (hereinafter referred to as “the trust contract of this case”) with respect to Defendant ○○○○ Investment’s H Bank in trust with the Plaintiff all of the deposit claims of this case and rights incidental thereto.

On September 28, 2011, Defendant ○○ Investment notified the Plaintiff that it entrusted the deposit claim of the instant third account with the HH bank. On September 28, 2011, Defendant ○○ Investment received from the HH bank the consent of the fixed date copy of the instant trust.

D. Provisional attachment, seizure, etc. of the defendants

From June 4, 2013 to May 22, 2015, the Defendants, as indicated in [Attachment 2] Nos. 2. to 14, seized or seized each of the deposit claims in the first and second accounts of this case between June 4, 2013 to May 22, 2015.

From June 4, 2013 to May 22, 2015, the Defendants, as indicated in [Attachment 2] Nos. 2. to 15, seized or seized the deposit claims of the third account of this case between June 4, 2013 to May 22, 2015.

E. Repayment of loans by Defendant ○○ Investment and deposit of H Bank

around July 12, 2013, Defendant ○○ Investment repaid the principal and interest of loan due to the instant loan No. 1, the principal and interest of loan due to the instant loan No. 1, the principal and interest of loan due to the instant loan No. 2 around September 16, 2013, and the principal and interest of loan due to the instant loan No. 3, October 17, 2013.

○ Meanwhile, on the grounds that it is unclear whether each of the deposit claims on the 1, 2, and 3 accounts of this case (hereinafter “each of the deposit claims of this case”) and each of the deposit claims of this case were valid as provisional seizure, seizure, etc. on June 3, 2015 and the Plaintiff and Defendant ○○ Investment was deposited as the principal deposit, and as the Bank’s gold No. 11727 in 2015, KRW 23,646,80 in the balance of the 2 account of this case was KRW 17,128,817 in 2015 and KRW 17,11732 in this Court, and KRW 10,397,764 in the balance of the 3 account of this case was mixed with each of the deposit claims of this case (hereinafter “each of the deposits of this case”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence A (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. Judgment on the Plaintiff’s assertion

According to the above facts, each of the instant deposit claims was subject to the Plaintiff’s respective trust notification to the trust agreement and HH bank and the consent of the HH bank’s fixed date date. The consent date of the final fixed date date date of September 28, 201, which was earlier than June 4, 2013 when the Defendants’ provisional attachment, seizure, etc. first reached the HH bank, and thus, each of the instant deposit claims was reverted to the Plaintiff and the Defendants were not able to oppose the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of each of the above deposits due to each of the deposits of this case, unless there are special circumstances.

B. Determination on the assertion of Defendant Korea ○○ Corporation, Korea, and ○○ City

(1) The purport of the above defendants' assertion

Defendant ○○ Investment transferred each of the instant deposit claims to the Plaintiff on condition that Defendant ○○ Investment was transferred to the Plaintiff until all obligations for loans owed by Defendant ○○ Investment to the lender are repaid. Since Defendant ○○ Investment fully repaid the principal and interest of loans due to Defendant 1, 2, and 3 loans of this case, each of the instant deposit claims naturally belonged to Defendant ○○ Investment. The Plaintiff’s claim should be dismissed on the premise that each of the instant deposit claims belongs to the Plaintiff.

(2) Determination

Even if the trust is terminated, the trustee is merely obligated to transfer the trust property to the beneficiary, truster, etc. who is the right holder to whom the trust property belongs, and does not automatically return or succeed to the trust property to the beneficiary, truster, etc., and the trustee bears the right and duty to continue managing the trust property within the scope of the same purpose as the trustee of a statutory trust for the right holder to whom the trust property is to be attributed, and the right holder to whom the trust property is to be reverted merely holds the right to the trust property, such as the trust property, in the form of trust benefit and the right to the trust property (see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da1272, Jul. 12, 2012). On the contrary, there is no evidence to prove that Defendant ○○ Investment concluded the instant trust contract under the condition that Defendant 1 would fully repay the loan obligations owed to the lender to the lender. Accordingly, the aforementioned Defendants’ assertion cannot be accepted.

C. Benefits of confirmation

In the mixed deposit, where the deposited person claims the withdrawal of the deposited goods, it is insufficient to provide documents to prove that the deposited person has the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods only in relation to other deposited persons, and in relation to the enforcement creditor, the document must be prepared and submitted (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012). As such, the Plaintiff has the interest to seek confirmation that the other deposited persons or the seizure and the collection creditor of the deposited goods have the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods against the Defendants, who are the creditors of the other deposited persons or the collection creditor.

3. Conclusion

The plaintiff's claim shall be accepted on the grounds of all.