공탁금출급청구권부존재확인
1. The main office of this case shall be dismissed.
2. The Daegu District Court Branch of December 17, 2013 gold 2013.
1. Basic facts
A. On August 12, 2013, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) and C filed an application for the seizure and collection order of the claim with the Daegu District Court Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 2013TTT3097 (hereinafter “Order of seizure and collection order”) against the Korea Rural Community Corporation under Article 38(4) of the Farmland Act and Article 51(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, which were held against the Korea Rural Community Corporation on the 14th of the same month by obtaining a decision on the seizure and collection order of the claim (hereinafter “decision on the seizure and collection order of the claim”), and the decision was served on the Korea Rural Community Corporation and the Korea Rural Community Corporation under the name of refund of farmland preservation charges pursuant to Article 291, 283, and 51(1) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act.
B. Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on December 17, 2013, the Korea Rural Community Corporation deposited KRW 35,967,191, at the Daegu District Court Branch Branch of 1303,00,000 won as KRW 1303,00,000 on December 17, 2013, on the ground that: (a) the request for deposit of the said money was made to the account of Boduk Construction and the Defendant on December 10, 2013; (b) the decision for the seizure and collection order of the instant claim in question was served; and (c) the order of priority in the seizure and collection order cannot be determined on the grounds that the said decision was served, and thus, the Korea Rural Community Corporation deposited the said money.
(hereinafter referred to as “instant deposit”). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap 1-4 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case does not exist in the defendant and seeks confirmation as to the legitimacy of the principal lawsuit.
We examine ex officio the legitimacy of the principal suit.
Pursuant to the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act.