beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On November 14, 2017, the Republic of Korea (Seoul East-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Office) issued two check numbers D (1,00,000 won in face value) and E (500,000 won in face value) to the Plaintiff. On July 11, 2018, the Republic of Korea (the competent Seoul Regional Administration) deposited KRW 1,50,000 in total with the Plaintiff and the Defendant as the principal deposit, and deposited KRW 1,50,000 in Seoul Central District Court Decision 2018Hun-Ga16713 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit money”) may be recognized by each entry in the evidence No. 1,2,6, B and 3.
2. On November 14, 2017, the Plaintiff received a check issued through money deposited in the Plaintiff’s passbook by deception from F on November 14, 2017, and the Defendant received the above check from F. The Defendant is a person who received the above check. The Plaintiff filed a judgment of nullification for the purpose of preserving the right of the check acquired through deception, followed the procedures for preserving the right, and was in the modified form of the check. The Plaintiff’s right to claim payment of the instant deposit money
As such, the Defendant, who is another depositor, sought confirmation that the claim for the withdrawal of the instant deposit is the Plaintiff, and filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant.
3. The Defendant asserts that the preceding lawsuit was instituted and declared in Seoul Northern District Court 2019Kadan595, and that the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed without benefit of the lawsuit, but the lawsuit of this case brought by the Plaintiff on February 14, 2019, while the lawsuit of this case brought by the Defendant as the preceding lawsuit (Seoul Northern District Court 2019Gadan5595) was received on April 15, 2019, and that the lawsuit brought by the Defendant as the preceding lawsuit was scheduled to be declared before the closing of argument of this case, it cannot be deemed that the benefit of the lawsuit of this case was extinguished due to the preceding lawsuit, and as seen in the following 4.