Whether the person who has the right to claim the deposit may claim the payment of the deposit by civil action where the deposit has been paid to a person who is not the person who has the right to claim the deposit.

On the other hand, if a provisional disposition is taken to withdraw the deposit of the deposited public official and the deposit is paid accordingly, even if the person to whom the deposit was paid is not the person to whom the deposit was made, the deposit procedure under the deposit law has been completed even if the person to whom the deposit was paid was not the person to whom the deposit was paid. Therefore, even if the person to whom the deposit was the person to whom the deposit was paid was the person to whom the deposit was

Article 8 (1) of the Deposit Act, Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act / [Institution of Lawsuit]

Supreme Court Decision 92Da13011 delivered on July 28, 1992 (Gong1992, 2644) Dated March 21, 1978

Plaintiff 1 and 1 other, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant

Korea

Intervenor joining the Defendant

Seoul High Court Decision 91Na23877 delivered on September 13, 1991

The part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

1. As to the ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant litigation performer and the ground of appeal No. 2 by the defendant's assistant intervenor

The court below recognized that the plaintiff is the same person as the plaintiff designated as the recipient of the deposited goods under the deposit certificate of this case. In light of the records, the judgment of the court below is acceptable.

When the court below acknowledged the above facts, it cannot be said that the evidence No. 9-2, which is admitted as evidence, is a document prepared after the continuation of the lawsuit in this case, and it is not appropriate for a party member's precedent cited as a arguments.

The issue is groundless.

2. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 2 and 5 of the defendant litigation performer and the grounds of appeal Nos. 1 and 3 of the defendant assistant intervenor

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the Korea National Housing Corporation accepted the land owned by the plaintiff on March 15, 1990 and deposited the deposited money of KRW 1,112,021,00 with the Suwon District Court as the plaintiff on March 30, 199. The non-party 1, the non-party 2, and the non-party 3 conspired to acquire the deposited compensation money, and the above non-party 1 pretended to be the plaintiff on April 12, 1990, acquired the above notice of deposit to be delivered to the plaintiff on April 16 of the same year to the defendant supplementary intervenor, who is a public official belonging to the Suwon District Court, a deposit official belonging to the Suwon District Court, by presenting the certificate of personal seal impression of the plaintiff, resident registration certificate, and resident registration card of the above non-party 1 as the plaintiff, and did not seek the above deposit payment from the defendant supplementary intervenor who was mistaken to the above non-party 1 as the plaintiff's right to claim the above deposit payment.

However, as in this case, if a provisional disposition is taken to withdraw the deposit of the deposited public official, and the deposit is paid accordingly, even if the person who received the deposit is not the person who received the deposit, the deposit procedure under the deposit law has been completed even if it is not the person who received the deposit. Therefore, even if the person who received the original claim for payment of the deposit is the person who received the deposit, it shall not be entitled to seek the payment of the deposit by civil action against the country in charge of the deposit affairs (see Supreme Court Order 78Ma30, Mar. 21, 1978). Therefore, it shall be deemed that the plaintiff cannot seek the payment of the deposit by civil procedure.

However, in this case, it is a separate problem that the person who has the right to claim the return of the true deposit can be liable for damages against the defendant when the public official was negligent.

Nevertheless, the court below accepted the plaintiff's claim for the payment of the deposit money of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the validity of provisional disposition as to the provisional disposition as above. It is reasonable to point this out.

3. As to the ground of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney

The judgment of the court below is reasonable to dispute the existence of the obligation of this case, and therefore, the defendant ordered the payment of damages for delay with 5% annual interest rate from the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the date of the decision of the court below, and ordered the payment of damages for delay with 25% per annum from the day following the decision of the court below to the date of the decision of the court below. According to the records, the judgment of the court below that the defendant is reasonable to dispute the existence of the obligation

There is no reason to discuss this issue.

4. Accordingly, since the defendant's appeal is well-grounded, the part of the judgment below against the defendant is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)