청구이의
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The reasons for the court's explanation concerning this case are as follows. Thus, the part which was used by the court of first instance as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act (excluding the part which conflicts with the reasons for the judgment of the court of first instance) is as follows: (a) 63,671,939 (A) on September 2, 2016 deposit money 63,671,939 (A) on September 2, 2016 ; (b) 3rd obligor's deposit under Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act is a requirement for the concurrence of seizure of the seized claim; (c) 3 obligor's deposit is the full amount of obligation to be deposited pursuant to the above legal provisions; (d) 3 obligor's deposit on July 22, 2004 between the obligor and the execution creditor and the execution creditor's deposit on July 14, 2005 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 20013 obligor's deposit).
(B) According to each of the facts stated in the judgment below, Gap 12 (money deposit) and Eul 18 (Distribution Table), the plaintiff was served with the defendant's creditor F and Seoul Metropolitan City Seoul Metropolitan City Seoul Metropolitan City Bonded KRW 63,671,939 on September 2, 2016 and deposited KRW 63,671,939 as the cause of deposit (hereinafter "the deposit of this case"), and the statutory provisions stated in the above deposit document are "Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act", and the facts of the cause of deposit include Busan District Court's branch branch branch's 2016TTTT101259 and collection order (hereinafter "the collection order of this case"), and the objection to the claim of this case.