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

Cheong-gu Office

AA Bank, Inc., Ltd., deposited by the Bank No. 000 on September 4, 2015 by the Bank of Korea No. 19,938,798

It is confirmed that the plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of deposit money.

A. The Plaintiff andCC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Nonindicted Company”) around March 2010

The bank (hereinafter referred to as the "AA bank") opened a joint deposit account in the name of the bank and deposited KRW 20 million in the account. The current account remains in KRW 19,938,798 (hereinafter referred to as the "the deposit and claim of this case", and the "the deposit claim of this case").

B. However, 000, based on the enforcement title against the non-party company, issued a seizure and collection order of KRW 20,768,493 of the instant deposit claims as D court 2010,000, and thereafter, EE market price was KRW 301,423,730 of the taxation claims on April 17, 2012; KRW 365,457,90 of the taxation claims on May 22, 2015; the defendant was KRW 39,853,610 of the taxation claims on June 18, 2013; KRW 39,853,610 of the taxation claims on March 28, 2014; KRW 11,151,600 of the taxation claims on March 24, 2014; KRW 205,307,304,307,305,307,3194, respectively.

C. On September 7, 2015, BB court No. 0000 on September 7, 2015, the Plaintiff and Nonparty Company deposited the entire amount of KRW 19,938,798 on the ground that there was competition between the seizure, etc. and the Plaintiff Company’s share of the instant deposit claim.

D. Meanwhile, as 00 court 200Hun-Ga000, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the non-party company against the non-party company that received a favorable judgment on August 10, 2016, stating that the Plaintiff would withdraw the deposit KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff would have received a favorable judgment on August 10, 2016. The above judgment became final and conclusive as it is.

Facts that there is no dispute over the basis of recognition, Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

On March 2, 2010, the deposit of this case was deposited in the name of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff jointly with the purpose of ensuring the service cost when the non-party company entrusted the conclusion of a sales contract for the development of multi-family housing in the 000 district and entrusted the Plaintiff with the business of concluding the sales contract for the development of multi-family housing. The Plaintiff performed the service by investing considerable expenses in accordance with the above service contract, but the said housing development project was not attributable to the non-party company. Therefore, the non-party company is obligated to refund the amount invested by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the instant deposit claim of this case was reverted to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, to pay the above deposit, the Plaintiff

B. Determination

In a case where a bank account is opened under the joint name and the right of the bank is to be exercised together, if the partnership funds are deposited under the joint name, a claim is in a quasi-joint ownership relationship. However, if the partnership funds are deposited under the joint name for a specific purpose other than that of the partnership and the purpose of the joint account holders are opened for the purpose of preventing and supervising the joint account holder from withdrawing his/her own deposit before the purpose of the joint account is achieved, one deposit claim shall be divided equally and it shall be deemed that it belongs to each joint account holder (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da72430, Oct. 9, 2008).

However, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, since the deposit of this case was deposited in the name of the non-party company in order to secure the future obligation for service costs against the plaintiff, it shall be deemed that the deposit of this case belongs to the non-party company in the first joint name. However, if the plaintiff acquired the claim against the non-party company, the deposit claim of this case may be deemed to have acquired all or part of it. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff acquired the claim against the non-party company prior to the seizure of the deposit claim of this case. Thus, the plaintiff cannot assert that the deposit claim of this case against the defendant was reverted to himself. Accordingly, the claim of this case seeking confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money of this case cannot be accepted without further review, on the premise that the deposit claim of this

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.