Seeking confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposited goods against other persons who are not other depositors or enforcement creditors, there is no benefit of action.

The tax authority seized the right to claim the return of the deposit money of the non-party tax obligor, not the seizure of the claim that is the cause of deposit but the right to claim the return of the deposit money of the non-party tax obligor.

2018 Gaz. 11940 Verification of Claim to Return Deposit Money

○ ○

Korea

January 29, 2019

February 12, 2019

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On September 8, 2015, the Defendant confirmed that the Defendant’s right to claim the payment of deposit money of KRW 18,910,030 deposited by the Daegu District Court Daegu District Court 2000, Daegu District Court ○○○○○○○○○ in 2000 to the Plaintiff. The Defendant’s right to claim the payment of deposit money of KRW 18,910,030 against Yellow ○○ was invalid. The attachment on May 26, 2016 and March 22, 2017, respectively.

1. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the Plaintiff’s right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit stated in the purport of the claim for a mixed deposit made by the ordinary North Korean Dos is the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant’s seizure of the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit stated in the purport of the claim is invalid.

B. First, I would like to examine the claim for confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money. In a case where the reason for the repayment of the deposited money and the reason for the repayment of the deposited money under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act occurred together with the cause for the enforcement deposit under Article 248(1) of the Civil Court of Korea, and the debtor made a mixed deposit, it is sufficient to prepare and submit a document proving that the deposited money has the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money in relation to other deposited parties and the execution creditor. Thus, it cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money against other deposited parties or the execution creditor. However, in full view of each of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Article 6-1 and the purport of all the arguments, the defendant does not attach the claim that is the cause for the deposit as stated in the purport of the claim, but attachment of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money by ○○○.

C. Next, this paper examines the claim for confirmation of invalidity of seizure. Since the seizure of a claim is only a relative effect between an execution creditor and an obligor, if the seized claim falls under a third party’s right other than an obligor, such seizure disposition is no longer effective, and it is no effect upon the seizure of a claim that does not belong to an obligor, and even if a claim that does not belong to an obligor falls under a third party’s right, the third party may dispose of the claim, claim the performance of the obligation to a third party, and the third party obligor shall not be prohibited from performing the obligation to a third party. Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, a person who asserts that the seized claim belongs to himself/herself does not have a legal interest in seeking revocation or invalidity of the seizure disposition (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Du4959, Jul. 9, 200). In light of the above legal principles, it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff’s claim for invalidation of seizure against the Plaintiff’s deposit money belongs to the Plaintiff, which is unlawful.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, we decide to dismiss the lawsuit of this case and decide as per Disposition.