1. On January 21, 2015, the Incheon District Court held on January 21, 2015 by the Hyundai Construction Company upon a request for exchange change in this Court.

1. The reasoning for this part of the lower court’s reasoning is as follows: (a) changing the indication of the status of the party to the instant subcontract construction contract into the co-defendant of the first instance trial; and (b) changing the 10th day of the first instance judgment into the 3rd day of the instant subcontract construction contract; and (c) changing the 10th day of the first instance judgment into the 10th day of the instant subcontract construction contract price.

(The main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). 2. The defendant's judgment on the main defense of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

In a case where a debtor makes a mixed deposit due to the causes for the repayment deposit in the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and the causes for the execution deposit in Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act concurrently occur, the execution court shall suspend the procedure of distribution until the time the execution court cannot proceed unless the creditor of the original creditor of the claim is finally confirmed to receive the amount deposited through the confirmation of invalidity, etc. of the transfer of claim. As such, the execution creditor shall submit to the execution court the document attesting that the claim subject to seizure belongs to the execution debtor for the payment of the above deposit amount, for example, the original copy of the confirmation judgment attesting that the debtor has the right to claim the payment of deposit, a certificate of confirmation of such judgment, a protocol of compromise with the same contents, and a written consent attached with the transferee’s seal impression.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da56015, Jan. 17, 2008). According to the above facts, the deposit of Hyundai Construction has the effect of the deposit for repayment on the ground of relative uncertainty that it is difficult for the deposited parties specified in paragraphs 1 through 3, such as Abtototos and attached provisional attachment details, to accurately understand the creditor, and the deposit for execution with the plaintiff, Es. Construction constitutes a mixed deposit with the effect of the deposit for execution for Abtos and Es.