공탁금출급청구권 확인 청구의 소
1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against defendant C is dismissed.
2. The Plaintiff and Defendant D Co., Ltd.
1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C corporation
A. On October 14, 201, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) was entitled to claim for the withdrawal of deposit money of KRW 3,539,130 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) that the deposited person was designated as Defendant D or Plaintiff and deposited as Defendant D or Plaintiff, and that the deposited person was entitled to claim for the withdrawal of deposit money.
B. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of a right, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means for the defendant to receive a confirmation judgment against the defendant to eliminate the apprehension and risk of the plaintiff's rights or legal status. Thus, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation must be a person who is likely to cause anxiety and risk in the plaintiff's legal status by dispute over the plaintiff's rights or legal relations, and there is a benefit of confirmation against the defendant (Supreme Court Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 197). In the case of a deposit of relative uncertainty, in order to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods by one of the depositors, there is a final and conclusive judgment in favor of other depositors to confirm the claim for withdrawal of deposited goods against the third party who is not the consignee. Thus, in such a case as above, the defendant of the lawsuit for confirmation has a benefit of confirmation of the claim for withdrawal of deposited goods.
Nor can it be viewed (Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596 Decided October 23, 2008). C.
In light of the above legal principles, in order for the plaintiff, one of the depositors, to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods, there is a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other depositor, which confirmed the claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods against the defendant D's written consent or the claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods against him. Thus, it is reasonable to seek confirmation against the defendant company, not the consignee, that the claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods of this case is the plaintiff.