1. Of the instant lawsuit, the part of the claim by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) shall be dismissed.

2. At the request of the Selection B,

1. Details of the disposition;

A. On November 1, 201, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the Selection Party B opened a joint deposit account (Account Number: C; hereinafter “instant deposit account”) with the National Bank of Korea Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Non-Party”) (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”).

B. On July 15, 2013, the Defendant attached the instant deposit claim of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) on the ground that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) failed to pay national taxes of KRW 258,661,530 in total, and served a notice of attachment of claims on July 16, 2013.

C. On October 11, 2013, the non-party company deposited the deposited amount of KRW 50,071,878 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2013Da21157 on the ground that the equity relation of the instant deposit cannot be known. The non-party company deposited the deposited amount of KRW 50,071,878 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

Accordingly, on November 26, 2013, the defendant cancelled the seizure of the deposit claim of this case, and on June 17, 2014, again seized the plaintiff (Appointed Party)'s right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit of this case.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant disposition”). . [Grounds for recognition] without dispute; Gap evidence 1; Gap evidence 3-1, 2; Gap evidence 4; Gap evidence 5-1, 2; Gap evidence 6-1; Eul evidence 6-1; and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. First, as long as the deposited person was designated as the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated party B, the Defendant asserts that the instant disposition should be dismissed on the ground that, inasmuch as the deposited person was found to be the Plaintiff (Appointed Party B), the obligee’s substantive law of the right to claim the payment of the deposit money of this case cannot be deemed to have a serious and obvious defect as it is deemed to be null and void as a matter of course. Thus, in order to dispute the illegality of the instant disposition, the instant disposition should undergo the pre-trial procedure and the instant lawsuit omitted is unlawful and thus, should be dismissed.

However, the plaintiff (appointed party) and the plaintiff.