(a) The defendant ¡¿ the corporation completed the construction on August 31, 2008 on June 23, 2008 】 】 The corporation has been awarded a contract for the repair of defects in apartments on the ground, Daegu OO-dong 194-1 and six parcels of land from the construction corporation 】 (b) the corporation has completed the construction on August 31, 2008. The defendant 】 】 the corporation 】 (c) due to the construction contract on December 1, 2008 】 】 the corporation 】 the construction 】 the construction 】 the contract price claim (hereinafter referred to as the "construction payment claim in this case") 】 the transfer to the Kim 】 the fact of assignment of claims 】 construction 】. (c) The construction 】 Notwithstanding the special agreement prohibiting the transfer of claims 】 the defendant 】 the corporation has transferred the construction payment claim in this case 】 Kim 】 the deposit of the construction 】 Defendant 300,000 won under the Civil Act 】 the deposit of the Fund in this case 】 Defendant 3060,08.

D. On October 7, 2009, in order to collect the value-added tax on arrears in the construction industry, corporate tax, etc. 】 Defendant Republic of Korea seized a claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act 】 Defendant’s claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit in the construction industry 】 Defendant’s claim for withdrawal on October 8, 2009 】 Kim 】 Kim pursuant to the National Tax Collection Act in order to collect the value-added tax on arrears 】 global income tax on October 8, 2009 】 Kim x Kim x (e) the claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit in accordance with the National Tax Collection Act. The Plaintiff seized the claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit on April 15, 2010 】 Daegu District Court 2010 Daegu District Court 】 Defendant 】 Construction and Kim 】 Kim 】 (No dispute was found to exist, the purport of the Plaintiff’s claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit in the entire pleadings and the collection order was issued.

2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the right to claim the withdrawal of the instant deposit was against one person, Kim Jae-de, one of the depositors, and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendants.

B. In cases of the deposit for repayment on the ground of the relative uncertainty of creditors under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, one of the deposited parties may request the withdrawal of deposited goods by submitting a written consent from other deposited parties or a final decision in favor of confirmation of the right to request the withdrawal of deposited goods that has been received against them (see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 9Ma4239, Nov. 30, 199; Supreme Court Order 2007Da35596, Oct. 23, 2008). This is also the same in cases where the collection creditor upon whom a collection order has been issued with respect to the right to request the withdrawal of deposited goods with one of the deposited parties whose relative uncertainty is the debtor and who has been issued with the collection order as to the right to request the withdrawal of deposited goods. According to subparagraphs 6-1 and 2 of the above Article 487 of the Civil Act 】 the defendant 】 the defendant 】 the defendant 】 his right to request the withdrawal of deposited goods 】 the defendant 】 the legal consent of this case without the plaintiff's consent.

D. In the case of a relative uncertainty deposit, seeking confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposited goods against a third party, who is not the person to whom the deposit was made, does not have any benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596, Oct. 23, 2008). The deposit of this case constitutes a repayment deposit based on the relative uncertainty, and thus, constitutes a payment deposit based on the relative uncertainty, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is no benefit to seek confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposited goods against the defendant who is not indicated as the person to whom the deposit was made.

The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendants is dismissed in entirety as unlawful.