It is merely an attachment to the designated person after the deposit of this case, and there is no benefit to confirm the right to claim the deposit.

Since it is merely an attachment of the right to claim the return of deposit acquired by a person designated as the principal after the deposit of this case under the National Tax Collection Act, the lawsuit seeking the confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit

§ 487. Condition and effect of deposit for performance under the Civil Code

Deposit of debtor's debt amount under Article 248 (3) of the Civil Execution Act

Seoul Central District Court 2018da5073917 Confirmation of the right to claim payment of deposit money

A. A.

1. Co., Ltd. b. 2. Korea

August 16, 2018

November 8, 2018

1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant is dismissed.

2. On December 16, 2015, between the Plaintiff and Defendant bB, Nonparty C Co., Ltd. confirmed that the right to claim payment of the deposit money for the x won out of the x members deposited with the Seoul Eastern District Court in the Gold Agendax on December 16, 2015 is against the Plaintiff.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea shall be borne by the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B shall be borne by Defendant B.

Cheong-gu Office

On December 16, 2015, between the Plaintiff and the Defendants, Nonparty C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as “Cccc”) deposited by the gold productionx in Seoul 00 District Court on December 16, 2015 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”) with the Plaintiff, the right to claim the payment of the deposit of the x members against the x members is confirmed to be the Plaintiff.

1. The plaintiff's illegality of litigation against the defendant in Korea;

In addition to the purport of the oral argument in Gap evidence No. 3, the deposit of this case is a mixed deposit in relation to the obligation to pay the construction cost of xx members to non-party dd Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "dd (hereinafter referred to as the "liability to deposit of this case"), which is the contractor, due to the appearance of multiple direct claimants, assignees, and creditors of provisional seizure, who deposit the above amount, stating the reason for the repayment deposit in the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and the reason for the execution deposit in Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act. In the same mixed deposit as the deposit of this case, the plaintiff, who is one of the parties to the payment deposit of this case, may pay the deposit with a document attesting that c has the right to claim the payment of the deposit in relation to other depositors of the repayment deposit and the execution creditors (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012).

However, the defendant Republic of Korea is merely a person who seized the right to claim the return of the deposited money acquired by d or non-party AA after the deposit of this case, and there is no dispute between the parties that not only is the person to whom the deposit of this case was made, but also the execution creditor for the obligations subject to the deposit of this case. In light of the above legal principles, in order to pay the deposited money, the plaintiff who is the person to whom the deposit of this case was made (other than the document proving that the execution creditor against other person to whom the deposit of this case was made has the right to claim the return of the deposited money, the document proving that he has the right to claim the return of the deposited money should not be prepared in relation to the defendant Republic of Korea in the above position.

Therefore, the lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea seeking confirmation of the plaintiff's right to claim payment of deposit money against the defendant Republic of Korea is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. The defendant's main defense pointing this out is with merit.

2. As to the claim against Defendant BB

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Grounds for recognition: Judgment based on the recommendation of confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea is dismissed, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition with the assent of all participating Justices.