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

Claim for the withdrawal of each deposit of KRW 30,33,700 deposited by the Geumwon ○○○○ in 2015

Of the creditors, it is confirmed that the right to claim the return of the deposit money of Seodaemun-gu is the plaintiff.

The reasons for the application are as shown in the attached Form.

2. Determination and conclusion

In a lawsuit for confirmation ex officio, there is a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when the defendant is the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the anxiety and risk that exist in the plaintiff's rights or legal status, and the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation is entitled to receive a judgment for confirmation against the defendant. Thus, the defendant in a lawsuit for confirmation shall be a person who is likely to cause apprehension and danger in the plaintiff's legal status through dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations and shall have a benefit of confirmation against such defendant. In addition, when the third debtor deposits for execution, the court of execution shall commence the distribution procedure (Articles 252 subparagraph 2 and 248 of the Civil Execution Act), and the distribution is made in accordance with the legal judgment of the court of execution on the priority order of the claim in the commenced distribution procedure, and the party dissatisfied with such judgment can only dispute by means of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, etc.

In light of the above legal principles, comprehensively taking account of the health class, evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2-2, and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the instant case, C deposited KRW 27,413,50 with the Seoul Northern District Court Geum○○○○○○ in 2014, on the ground that provisional attachment and seizure, etc. were concurrent with respect to the monthly wage claim of the Plaintiff against C on May 27, 2014, Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act as the ground provision, and C deposited KRW 27,413,50 with respect to the monthly wage claim of the Plaintiff

6.5. The Plaintiff’s monthly wage claim against C is recognized as having deposited KRW 30,33,70 with the Seoul Northern District Court ○○○○○○ in 2015, on the ground that provisional attachment and seizure were concurrent with regard to the claim for monthly wage against C. Since each of the deposits of this case is an enforcement deposit, the party who is dissatisfied with the distribution procedure of the court of execution can only file a dispute by means of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution, etc., and seek confirmation of the claim for the payment of deposit of this case by a separate lawsuit is an inappropriate and round-up dispute resolution method. Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed as there is no benefit of confirmation, and therefore, the lawsuit of this case is dismissed as unlawful.