1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. We examine, ex officio, whether the instant lawsuit is lawful or not, ex officio, as to the determination on the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit.

On January 2014, the Plaintiff received the claim against C from the Defendant, and thus, sought confirmation that C’s claim for payment of the deposit stated in the claim for reimbursement was to be made by C.

Inasmuch as the person entitled to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods is the person to whom the deposited goods are deposited or his successor and the person to whom the deposited goods are deposited are specified in the form of the statement of the deposited goods, even if the creditor under substantive law is not designated as the person to whom the deposited goods are deposited, the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods cannot be exercised unless the person to whom the deposited goods are deposited is designated, and even if the person other than the deposited person has received the confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against the deposited person, the verified person cannot directly claim the withdrawal of deposited goods. Thus, barring any special circumstance such as the collection creditor against whom one of the deposited persons is the debtor, there is no benefit to seek the confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da67476 Decided August 25, 2006, etc.). The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was transferred the claim prior to the deposit of performance by C, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff was issued a seizure and collection order.

The instant lawsuit is unlawful because a person, other than the principal, seeks confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposited goods against the principal, and thus, there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. The instant lawsuit is dismissed.