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

A lawsuit for confirmation is allowed when the plaintiff's right or legal status is in imminent danger and receiving a judgment of confirmation is the most effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute. Thus, it is examined ex officio as to whether the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant A has the benefit of confirmation.

Defendant A deposited KRW 4 million on the ground that the deposited person is the remaining Defendants, and the creditor is not guilty.

However, in the case of such relative uncertainty deposit, a person who intends to claim the withdrawal of the deposit shall submit a document attesting his/her right to claim the withdrawal, i.e., the document attesting his/her person to whom the deposit was made (Article 33 subparagraph 2 of the Deposit Rule), and the identity of the person to whom the deposit was made is formally determined by the statement of the deposit. Thus, even if the plaintiff is not designated as the person to whom the deposit was actually made, such as the plaintiff's assertion, the right to claim the withdrawal

Ultimately, even if it is confirmed in the true relation with the depositer, a third party who was not included in the depositee from the beginning cannot be included in the depositer by a confirmation judgment. Thus, the lawsuit of this case against the Defendant A, the depositer, cannot be deemed as an effective and appropriate means to resolve legal disputes surrounding the withdrawal of deposit money, and thus, is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. Whether the lawsuit against the remaining Defendants is lawful or not is sought by the Plaintiff to confirm that the remaining Defendants, the depositee, also have the right to claim payment of the deposit money against the Plaintiff.

ex officio, a third party who is not a depository party shall be the deposited person.