The conciliation was concluded between AA and the plaintiff and AA thereafter, 200 . 0. lectures ○. ○.

Peremptory notice of the exercise of rights by the ○ court 200○○○○○ with respect to the provision of security against the application

In addition, the court filed an application for cancellation of security, and the above court rendered a decision to revoke security on 2000. 0. ○.

D. However, the head of the ○○ Tax Office under the jurisdiction of the Republic of Korea against Defendant AA on 2000. 0. ○.

Defendant AA’s claim for recovery of the instant deposit in order to collect ○0 won in national taxes in arrears.

The rights were seized.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The plaintiff and defendant AA applied for the suspension of compulsory execution of this case under a joint name, and the above law

to deposit as a joint guarantee for BB without individually ordering the offer of security

The plaintiff and defendant AA deposited this case under the joint name, but inside the office.

Now, the Plaintiff contributed 2000. 000. 000 million won of the instant deposit. The aforementioned contribution was made by the Plaintiff.

shall be determined in accordance with the actual relationship in which the funds are to be incurred.

As such, the right to claim the deposit of this case belongs to the Plaintiff in full. Accordingly, the Defendant

○○ Tax Office under the territory of the private country 2000. 0. ○. Defendant AA has against the Republic of Korea by Defendant AA.

Although the Plaintiff seized the right to claim the deposit money, the Defendant assumed the full amount of the deposit money.

AA does not have a right to recover it, so the seizure is not a non-existent claim.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s deposit money against the Defendants is null and void.

It seeks to confirm that the right to claim for recovery is the plaintiff.

B. Determination

(1) Defendant Republic of Korea part

According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 8, the plaintiff's subscription to this case on 2000. 00. 1

Security is revoked after a joint deposit is made, even though it is recognized that all 00,000 won has been contributed.

Where a claim for recovery of deposit is made due to reasons such as the possession and ratio of the right to claim deposit;

In internal relations between persons, even if determined in accordance with the substance relationship to which such person has assumed the fund,

Determination in the relation to a third party other than the joint names shall be made formally by the statement in the deposit document.

court did not specify the amount to be apportioned between depositors in the deposit order. Therefore, the court did not specify the amount to be apportioned among depositors.

c) the depositor does not specifically separate the amount of each deposit in the certificate of deposit.

In relation to third parties other than the joint names, the joint names shall be equal to the ratio of each joint names.

Inasmuch as the deposit should be deemed to have been made in proportion to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s Republic of Korea, the private interest

The right to claim the deposit of KRW 1/2 of the total sum of KRW 00,000,000 is against the Plaintiff.

As such, the seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea is null and void, and the remainder shall be avoided.

The seizure of the Republic of Korea will be valid. Furthermore, the defendant Republic of Korea is disputing this.

As long as there is a benefit to seek confirmation of this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion. Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s assertion has some merit.

(2) No reason exists, in part.

(2) Defendant AA part

The defendant is deemed to have led to the confession of the plaintiff's above assertion under Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Therefore, between the Plaintiff and Defendant AA, the claim for recovery of the instant deposit is ambiguous.

The plaintiff is deemed to be the two plaintiff.

3. Conclusion

Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant Republic of Korea is justified within the above scope of recognition.

agency of the Plaintiff shall accept the remainder of the claim, and shall dismiss the remainder of the claim, and the agency of the Plaintiff shall

The Gu shall accept it for the reason and make a decision as per the disposition.

1. Between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea:

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant AA deposited on 200 ○○, ○○, 200 ○○, 200 ○○, ○○.

(1) The right to claim the deposit of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,

confirm that such act has been committed.

B. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Republic of Korea are dismissed.

2. Deposit of KRW 00,00 among the Plaintiff and Defendant AA on the deposit money specified in paragraph 1-A

The claim for gold collection is confirmed to be the plaintiff.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, 1/2 of the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is the Plaintiff, and the remainder is the Defendant

The portion arising between the Plaintiff and Defendant AA shall be borne by the Republic of Korea, and the portion arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant AA

this charge.

Cheong-gu Office

The Plaintiff and Defendant AA deposited by ○○, ○○, 200, 200, 200, ○○, 200, ○○.

It is confirmed that the right to claim the deposit of KRW 00,000 is the plaintiff.

A. BB filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff and Defendant AA on 2000. ○○○○○○○○○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○○○○○○○, and its ground building, against the Plaintiff and the Defendant AB, demanding each delivery of the ○○○○○-dong, ○○○○○○, and the said court rendered a judgment that provisional execution may be effected by accepting the entire claim by BB on 2000. 300.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff and Defendant AA filed an appeal against the above judgment, and filed an application for the suspension of compulsory execution with the above court 2000 Kao○○○○, and the above court ordered the above court to deposit KRW 00,000 for BB as a guarantee for the suspension of compulsory execution on 200 ○○, and the Plaintiff deposited the Plaintiff and Defendant AA as the depositee on 200 ○○, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 0,000 as the depositee, and the Plaintiff deposited the Plaintiff and Defendant AA as the depositee on 200 ○, 200 ○,00 ○○,000,000 (hereinafter this case’s deposit). The above court decided to suspend compulsory execution based on the judgment on 200 ○○. Meanwhile, the appellate court (○○ court 200 ○○ or 200 ○○○○) and the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on 200 ○○.