1. According to the reasoning of the judgment below as to the grounds of appeal regarding the execution deposit, the court below rejected the above assertion on the ground that the defendant, who is the third debtor of the seizure and collection order of this case prior to the issuance of the above collection order, deposited KRW 63,90,614 out of the amount of the seized claim and its interest, etc. 64,165,930 out of the amount of the seized claim, and the defendant's debt was extinguished due to repayment within the scope of the deposited amount. However, if the third debtor is deemed to have concurrent seizure under Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act, if the deposit is valid due to the concurrent seizure of the seized amount, the court below should deposit the total amount of the debt corresponding to the seized amount, and it cannot be deemed effective deposit that the defendant deposited only some of the amount of the seized claim amount of KRW 207,713,549 out of the amount of the seized claim.

However, even if the third obligor of the seizure and collection order did not deposit the total amount of the debt and the effect of the execution deposit is not recognized, if the payment of the deposited money is executed after the deposit is accepted and the distribution procedure is completed, the repayment of the deposited money shall be effective (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2005Da41443, Nov. 10, 2005). According to the records, since the distribution procedure for the above execution deposit is commenced with N of the Lo Government District Court N, and Es. Es. Es.’s creditors, including the Plaintiff, receive dividends and completed the distribution procedure, the repayment shall be effective, even if the execution deposit amount by the Defendant does not reach the total amount of the debt against Es.S.

Nevertheless, the lower court determined otherwise.