Whether it can be deemed that there was an expression of the acceptance of deposit by the service, in case where the attachment and assignment order of the claim for the withdrawal of deposit was served on the garnishee.

Among the assignment order and seizure order against the right to claim the return of deposited goods of the person to whom the deposit was made, the right to accept the deposit to the deposited public official is included, but it cannot be deemed that there was the declaration of acceptance of the deposit by the delivery to the third debtor of the above order.

Article 489 of the Civil Code, Article 40 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs, Article 44 of the said Rules, Article 564 of the Civil Procedure Act

Dried cooperation

Korea

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 10,367,146 won with 5% interest per annum from April 17, 198 to the date of full payment.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant and a declaration of provisional execution.

In fact, Nonparty 1 did not sell KRW 85,150,00 for the above 7th 17th 7th 7th Do-dong 752 and KRW 200 for the above 752-22th Do-dong 752 and did not receive KRW 60,50,00 for the remaining land and above ground buildings as security on January 28, 1987, Nonparty 10,00,000 and paid KRW 10,367,146 won to Nonparty 1 and returned it to Nonparty 488.3, the above 88th Do-dong office's 88th Do-dong office's 88th Do-dong 7th Do-dong 1988 Do-dong 78888 Do-dong 500 Do-dong 500 Do-dong 9720 Do-dong 1988 Do-dong 1988

The plaintiff first served on the defendant on April 16, 198 that the attachment and assignment order of the above deposit claim was served on the defendant on April 16, 198, and the contents of the above order were entirely included in the acceptance right of the right of the claimant for deposit and the contents of the service should be deemed to have been declared. Even if the plaintiff did not so, the plaintiff performed all consideration after the delivery of the above order and notified the depositor of the fact. This constitutes a case where the creditor of Article 489(1) of the Civil Act approved the deposit or notified the depositor of the receipt of the deposited money. Thus, although the right of the claim for deposit recovery was extinguished, the public official of the above court returned the deposit money to the plaintiff on May 30, 198 because the above last Dong returned the deposit money in violation of the provisions of the above Act. The defendant Republic of Korea is liable to pay the plaintiff the above deposit money 10,367,146 won and delay damages due to a tort committed by the public official of deposit.

Therefore, according to Article 44 of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs, when the plaintiff notified the deposit office of the receipt of the deposit, the depositer can submit a document stating his acceptance of the deposit to the deposit officer or a certified copy of the final and conclusive judgment which made the validity of the deposit. According to Article 40 of the Rules, when the deposit officer receives the above document, the deposit officer must write his name and affix his seal and affix his seal to the original document. In light of the above rules, it can be seen that the creditor of the depositer has indicated his acceptance right when the claim for the withdrawal of deposit is seized and received in whole. However, it cannot be deemed that the delivery of the order was included in the delivery of the deposit receipt. Thus, the non-party 1, the deposit office, did not express his intention for acceptance of the deposit until the deposit is recovered. Accordingly, the above argument is without merit, and it is acknowledged that the plaintiff's notification of approval of the deposit to the deposit officer was made in accordance with Article 40 of the Rules on the Handling of Public Document No. 980, which is the purport of the oral document No. 98.

Therefore, it would be legitimate to pay the deposit money to the non-party who made the deposit officer's lawful request for deposit collection.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case based on the premise of the relevant illegal act is dismissed as it is without merit, and the costs of lawsuit are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the plaintiff as the losing party.

Judges Jil-dong (Presiding Judge) Kim Yoon-ho