2015Da14747 Objection by a third party

2.2 e.g.

A

Gwangju High Court ( Jeonju) Decision 2014Na1701 Decided January 29, 2015

November 17, 2015

The judgment below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Gwangju High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined (to the extent of supplement in case of supplemental appellate briefs not timely filed).

1. After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below determined that the right to claim for recovery of deposit money and the ratio of the right to claim recovery of deposit money should be determined in accordance with the real relation to which the court individually ordered the applicant to deposit as a joint guarantee for the respondent without individually ordering the request for suspension of compulsory execution under the joint name to provide security, and therefore, the right to claim recovery of deposit money should be exercised against the other depositors by exercising the right to claim recovery of deposit money against the other depositors. Thus, the court below determined that the right to claim recovery of deposit money and the right to claim recovery of deposit money of this case cannot be deemed to exist in the case where one of the joint depositors seizes the right to claim recovery of deposit money of this case to the other depositors. Since the right to claim for recovery of deposit money of this case cannot be deemed to belong to the other creditors of this case as the right to claim recovery of deposit money of this case and the right to claim recovery of deposit money of this case cannot be deemed to belong to the other creditors of this case under the joint name of this case, since the right to claim for recovery of deposit money belongs to the other creditors of this case.

2. However, we cannot accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Since the contents of a deposit made by a depositer are determined formally by the entry of the deposit, if one deposit amount is jointly recorded without dividing the amount of deposit by each depositer, the depositer shall be deemed to have been deposited in an equal ratio. Even if the actual share of the depositer inside the depositer is different, this is a matter to be resolved separately inside the depositer (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da79562, Mar. 29, 2012). This legal doctrine applies likewise to the proportion of the ownership of the right to claim for recovery of the deposit upon the cancellation of a compulsory execution, if a joint deposit is made for the security of the compulsory execution suspension. Accordingly, even if a joint depositer has actually contributed to the full amount of the deposit, this is merely a reason that can be asserted only within the internal accounts among the joint deposit holders. If a third party has issued a seizure and collection order on the right to claim recovery of the deposit of another joint depositee, such seizure and collection order becomes effective within the limit of the amount of deposit amount pursuant to the equal ratio between the deposit depositors (see Supreme Court Decision 20197Da14, Feb. 9715, 2014.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the seizure and collection order for the deposit money claim by the depositor who failed to contribute the deposit money is invalid on the grounds that the ownership and ratio of the deposit money claim for the suspension of compulsory execution shall depend on the actual relationship with which the deposit money is to be borne. In this regard, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the reversion of the deposit money claim, which affected the judgment.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the remaining grounds of appeal, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Park Sang-hoon

A person shall be appointed.