2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The following facts may be admitted in full view of all the arguments in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 7, and Eul evidence 1 (including household numbers), unless there is a dispute between the parties or in each entry:

A. The Plaintiff filed an application for provisional attachment against four parcels, such as Chungcheongnam-si Branch of Chungcheong District Court 2009Kadan219, which was owned by KimB, with the purchase price claim amounting to KRW 000,00, and filed a lawsuit as the above court against the Plaintiff on February 12, 2009, after receiving the provisional attachment decision from the above court on February 12, 2009, and against GB, the claim amounting to KRW 200,00.

B. While the lawsuit on the above merits (hereinafter referred to as "the lawsuit on the merits of this case") is pending, and KimB deposited 000 won of the deposit money for the marine disaster prevention as set forth in the above provisional seizure decision (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit money for the marine disaster prevention of this case") as Cheongju District Court 2010, and the execution of the above provisional seizure was revoked on April 5, 2010.

C. On the other hand, on May 12, 2010, the Defendant seized the right to recover the instant amount of deposit on the basis of the transfer income tax claim against KimB (including KRW 000 on January 12, 2007, including the interim prepayment/pre-determined shares of KRW 000, and additional charges) and notified the Cheongju District Court of Cheongju on May 13, 2010.

D. Thereafter, on October 14, 2010, KimB paid 000 won to the Plaintiff until December 31, 2010, in lieu of conciliation, such as payment of delay damages at the rate of 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment, and as of November 3, 2010, the decision was made in lieu of conciliation, and as of November 3, 2010.

E. Based on the decision in lieu of the final conciliation as above, the Plaintiff applied for a seizure and collection order, which transferred the provisional seizure of the right to claim the recovery of the amount of deposit in the instant case to the provisional seizure, as the Cheongju District Court Branch Branch Branch 2011TTB84, and received the said decision from the said court on January 17, 201.

F. Therefore, the distribution procedure of the instant amount deposited at the Cheongju District Court as the Chungcheong District Court Decision 2011No. 22 was initiated, and in the said distribution procedure, the Defendant filed a claim for the issuance of KRW 000 (including additional charges) of the transfer income tax on KimB on January 2008.

G. On May 31, 201, the said distribution court: (a) prepared a distribution schedule stating that all of the amount to be distributed to the Defendant and that the Plaintiff does not pay any dividends to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant distribution schedule”); (b) presented the interested parties; and (c) filed the instant lawsuit on June 3, 201 after raising an objection to the entire amount of dividends to the Defendant; and (d) filed the instant lawsuit on June 3, 201.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The defendant seized the right to claim the recovery of the deposit in this case held by KimB, and the right to claim the recovery of the deposit in this case arises under the condition that the plaintiff would be decided against the lawsuit in this case against KimB, and as in this case, in the case where the plaintiff became final and conclusive like the winning in the lawsuit in this case, the right to claim the recovery of the deposit in this case shall be deemed extinguished, and it shall be deemed that the defendant's seizure also becomes null and void. In addition, in light of the purport of the provisional seizure cancellation system by deposit of the deposit in the provisional seizure, the profits which the creditor of the provisional seizure could enjoy by provisional seizure shall not be infringed by the cancellation of provisional seizure execution, and it is improper that the defendant should collect national taxes based on the national tax priority right, and receive it through the deposit in this case. Accordingly, the distribution schedule in this case shall be corrected to distribute all the amount to be distributed to the plaintiff who is not the defendant to the plaintiff.

B. Determination

Where an amount of release from provisional seizure is deposited in lieu of the object of provisional seizure, the effect of provisional seizure is not itself to the right to claim the recovery of the debtor's deposit, and where other creditors are ordered to request the recovery of the amount of release from provisional seizure, the object of provisional seizure is the same as that of the creditor's provisional seizure. Even if the debtor's right to claim for release from provisional seizure is conditional claims under the condition of suspension such as the final decision of loss in the lawsuit in the merits of the creditor of provisional seizure, the deposit from provisional seizure is substituted for the object of provisional seizure, and the purpose of deposit is to preserve the compulsory execution of the preservation claim, as it is substituted for the object of provisional seizure, and the creditor of provisional seizure has no right to preferential payment for the object of provisional seizure, as it does not have any right to claim for release from provisional seizure, other creditors with an executory title do not cause any other damage to the plaintiff's right to claim for recovery from the amount of release from provisional seizure (see Supreme Court Decision 196Da3250, Nov. 1, 1996).

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit, and it will be dismissed.However, the judgment of the court of first instance is just in this conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.