The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 2, in this case where the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the person holding the right of payment on the amount stated in the purport of the claim out of the deposited money of this case deposited as the assignee of the claim, the lower court, citing the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, determined that the contract of this case entered into on April 12, 2007 is the Republic of Korea and is merely the beneficiary of the contract, and thus, the obligor under the contract

Examining the records in accordance with the provisions of the former Procurement Act (amended by Act No. 9714 of May 27, 2009) and the Enforcement Decree of the same Act (amended by Presidential Decree No. 21700 of August 25, 2009), and the relevant legal principles, the above judgment of the court below is justified.

There is no error of misapprehending the legal principles on the former Public Procurement Act, etc.

The precedent cited in the grounds of appeal is different from the case of this case, and it is not appropriate to invoke this case.

2. As to the ground of appeal No. 1, this part of the ground of appeal is erroneous in the judgment of the court below which did not recognize that the Plaintiff had the right to withdraw the amount stated in the claim of the instant deposit on the ground that the Republic of Korea cannot recognize that the Plaintiff received legitimate notification of assignment of claims to Korea, which is the debtor, even though the Plaintiff

However, even if the plaintiff lawfully notified the transfer of claims to Korea, according to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below and the record, the deposit of this case is not deposited by the Republic of Korea, which is the debtor of the construction cost of this case, but by the transferor of this case or by the debtor of the provisional attachment and seizure and collection order.