1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The defendant's incidental appeal shall be dismissed.

3. The appeal costs and incidental appeal costs.

1. The court's explanation of this case is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this case as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

However, with regard to the plaintiff's assertion that it has been repeated or newly made at the trial, the judgment as referred to in paragraph 2 below is added, and the defendant's incidental appeal is added to the judgment as referred to in paragraph 3 below

2. Additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) On March 12, 2014 and March 28, 2014, the Defendant, before exercising the right to claim for the payment of the instant deposit money, received the order for the seizure and collection of the instant deposit by exercising the right to claim for the payment of the instant deposit money as the seized claim under the Seoul Eastern District Court Order 2014TTTT4 and 2014TTTT 5223, which was before exercising the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit. Therefore, the Defendant was able to recover the instant deposit by exercising the right to collect each of the said claims according to the seizure and collection order. (2) However, the Defendant did not exercise the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit based on the collection order, but exercised the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit.

3) Therefore, even if the Defendant reserved an objection in exercising the right to claim a refund of the instant deposit, the Defendant should be deemed to have ratified the deposit of the instant case, which was recognized by himself as valid, or null and void. 4) Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s obligation against the Defendant is deemed to have been extinguished by the Defendant’s withdrawal of the instant deposit and reduction of its payment.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7 evidence, the Defendant issued a collection order under the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 2014TTA and No. 2014 and No. 5223, Mar. 28, 2014, with respect to the Plaintiff’s claim for recovery of the instant deposit, “part of the Plaintiff’s claim for collection of the instant deposit” as the seized claim. However, the Defendant received the collection order under the above provision.