Whether any person who intends to receive deposited goods, where any other person who has deposited money on condition that he/she shall pay for any other consideration refuses to receive the deposited money, may make a deposit for any other consideration and claim for withdrawal of deposited goods with the deposit certificate attached thereto.

When any person who intends to receive deposited goods provides the depositor with the performance of the counter-performance specified in the deposit sheet, but the depositor refuses to receive the deposited goods, he/she may deposit the counter-performance with the deposit officer and request the withdrawal of deposited goods with the process document attesting that the counter-payment has been made under Article 9 of the Deposit Act. In this case, the performance obligation is extinguished immediately at the time of the deposit of the counter-performance and the effect of the extinction of the deposited goods is retroactively extinguished only if the person who deposited the counter-payment has immediately recovered the deposited goods. Thus, unless there is no clear proof that the depositee recovered the deposited goods, the deposit officer shall pay the deposit out in response to the above request for withdrawal of deposited goods.

Article 9 of the Deposit Act, Article 487 of the Civil Act

Attorney Park Jae-sik, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 89Ma607 Decided May 29, 1989

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to Dong Branch of Seoul District Court.

The grounds of reappeal are examined.

According to the records, the non-appeal Park Jong-young stated 200,668,493 won for the remainder of the construction as the re-appellant for the repayment to the public official in the deposit office of the Dong branch branch of the Seoul District Court, and the re-appellant provided 1 receipt as the counter-payment in return for the deposit. The re-appellant refused to receive the deposit because she deposited 1 receipt as the above deposit officer in return for the above deposit office, the deposit officer filed a claim for the withdrawal of deposit with the above public official in charge of the above support, on the ground that the deposit officer deposited 1 copy of the above receipt, cannot be deemed to have been paid definitely. The court below determined that the appeal against non-acceptance by the public official in charge of the deposit was groundless.

However, when a person who intends to receive deposited goods provides the depositor with the performance of the consideration as stated in the deposit sheet, but the depositor refuses to receive the deposited goods, he/she may deposit the consideration with the deposit officer and request the withdrawal of deposited goods together with the process document attesting that there was any benefit in return as stipulated in Article 9 of the Deposit Act. In this case, the performance obligation is retroactively extinguished only in cases where the depositee immediately terminates at the time of deposit of the consideration and the depositee collects the deposited goods, and the effect of the extinguishment of the obligation becomes retroactively null and void only in cases where the depositee collects the deposited goods. Thus, unless there is no proof that the depositer recovered the deposited goods, the deposit officer should pay the deposited goods out in response to the above claim for withdrawal of deposited goods.

Nevertheless, the court below dismissed the appeal against the disposition of the public official who accepted the claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods on the ground that the deposit certificate which deposited one receipt without any particular explanation can not be deemed as the execution of the consideration definitely. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the withdrawal of deposited goods and the validity of the deposit for repayment. Therefore, the ground for appeal pointing this out is justified.

Therefore, the order of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)