[공탁공무원의처분에대한항고][공1994.2.15.(962).2.15.(962),473]
In case where a third party has received against the deposited person the confirmation of the right to receive the withdrawal of deposited goods, the copies of the right to request the withdrawal of deposited goods.
The fact that a third party, who is not a deposit party, filed a lawsuit against the deposited party to confirm the right to receive the withdrawal of deposited goods, and received the confirmed judgment, does not immediately cause the eligibility of the deposited party to the third party, and the confirmation judgment does not fall under the "document proving that he has the right to claim the withdrawal" as stipulated in Article 30 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs. Thus, the third party who received the confirmed judgment cannot directly request the withdrawal of deposited goods.
Articles 8 and 10 of the Deposit Act, Article 30 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs
Sub-Council of Magyeong-gun, Magyeong-gun, Magyeong-gun, Magyeong-gun
Seoul Central District Court Order 92Ma4343 dated June 12, 1993
The reappeal is dismissed.
The grounds of reappeal are examined.
A third party, who is not a deposit party, filed a lawsuit to confirm the right to receive the deposit money against the deposited party and received the confirmation judgment, does not immediately cause the eligibility of the deposited party to the third party, and the confirmation judgment does not fall under the "documents proving the right to claim the payment of the deposit money" as stipulated in Article 30 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs. Thus, the order of the court below to the same purport is correct, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to Article 30 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs, such as the theory of lawsuit, and there is no error in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the exceptional cases where the payment of the deposit money can be claimed by the method of civil procedure, and as such, there is no dispute over the right to receive the deposit money between the deposited party and the third party, the judgment confirming the right to claim the payment of the deposit money directly against the deposited party does not constitute a direct claim for the payment of the deposit money. All arguments are without merit.
Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.
Justices Kim Sang-won (Presiding Justice)