1. If a garnishee makes a deposit pursuant to Articles 291 and 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act due to a provisional seizure against a monetary claim, the monetary claim against the garnishee of the debtor who is the original seized claim due to the effect of repayment of obligation due to deposit shall be extinguished, and instead the debtor acquires the right to claim payment of deposit money, and the effect of provisional seizure shall continue to exist against the debtor's right to claim payment of deposit money against the amount of deposit equivalent to the amount of such requested claim (Article 297 of the Civil Execution Act).

If an order of seizure to be transferred to a provisional seizure, which is the reason for the provisional seizure, is served on the State (deposit), the deposit under Articles 291 and 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act shall be changed to the execution deposit under Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act, and the deposit officer shall report the reason immediately to the issuing court of the seizure order. Accordingly, the debtor's right to claim payment of the deposit money on the part that has the effect of the provisional seizure shall be extinguished, and the deposit money may be paid only by the payment entrustment under the distribution procedure of the executing court as the distribution foundation.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the record, the defendant (the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs, the Seoul Regional Land Management Office, the National Land Management Office, the third obligor himself/herself) was subject to the provisional seizure order of 973,728,250 won as to the plaintiff's compensation claim under the second expropriation ruling of 15,50,000 won on February 5, 209, and the third obligor was assigned to the Seoul Central District Court 209Kadan1087, and the third obligor was assigned to the defendant (the competent District Court) who was the third obligor on February 6, 2009, and the provisional seizure order of 140,000 won was sent to the Seoul Central District Court 205, the third obligor's deposit order of 140,770,000 won was delivered to the defendant (the Central District Court 205,000 won) on the ground that there was a notice of the provisional seizure order of 15,201,294,205,

3. Examining these facts in light of the legal principles as seen earlier, first of all, the Defendant (competent authority) directly paid KRW 477,770, and KRW 31,309,030 to Pyeongtaek-gun on February 16, 2009, and deposited KRW 941,941,450 on February 18, 2009 on the ground of provisional seizure of claims, thereby extinguishing all of the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of deposit money due to the second expropriation ruling. Alternatively, the Plaintiff acquired the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of deposit money, and the provisional seizure continued to exist in the part of KRW 715,504,340 corresponding to the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of deposit money.

In addition, the provisional seizure and collection order to transfer the provisional seizure, which is the reason for deposit, to the provisional seizure, is served on the defendant, and the deposit officer reported the reason for deposit, the plaintiff's right to claim the deposit payment as to the portion of KRW 715,504,340, has expired. The deposit is the distribution foundation, and it is possible to pay the deposit only by the payment entrustment according to the distribution procedure of the executing court.

As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for compensation for losses or the claim for payment of deposit money amounting to KRW 715,50,340, which the Plaintiff claims as automatic claim for offset, has already ceased to exist before the Plaintiff expresses his/her intent of offset, the lower court’s determination that such offset cannot be effective is justifiable. In so doing, it is not acceptable to accept the allegation in the grounds of appeal to the effect that the lower court erred by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding a case in which offset is not permitted by nature

4. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kwon Soon-il (Presiding Justice)