1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the reconstruction association which obtained authorization for the establishment of the reconstruction association for A apartment in the land, including the Han-gu, Young-gu, and the defendant was the owner of the above A apartment 106 Dong 304, and was the defendant's member.

B. The Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for the payment of cash settlement money for the said A apartment without filing an application for parcelling-out within the period set by the Plaintiff (U.S. District Court 2012Da3107), and on November 1, 2012, the Defendant rendered a judgment in the said lawsuit on the following grounds: “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant the amount of KRW 137,49,144 and damages for delay from March 1, 2012,” and each appeal was dismissed on November 15, 2013, although both the Plaintiff and the Defendant appealed.

(Seoul High Court 2012Na104764). The lawsuit is currently pending in the court of final appeal.

C. On December 20, 2012, the Defendant received a seizure and collection order against the Plaintiff’s deposit claim against the Plaintiff’s Bank (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) (hereinafter “Korea Bank”) on December 20, 2012 with the title of execution. When the above seizure and collection order was served on the bank around that time, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 15,858,694 in total with the cash settlement money to be paid to the Defendant by the Defendant as the principal deposit on May 3, 2013 and the delay damages therefor, with the Suwon District Court No. 4907 in Suwon District Court in 2013.

At that time, the defendant paid the above deposit money.

On the other hand, with respect to the deposit deposited in the joint account of the Plaintiff and Scco Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Scco Construction”), the Bank does not know who the said deposit was between the Plaintiff and Scco Construction, and on the ground that the Plaintiff’s 25 creditor, including the Defendant, including the Defendant, did not know who the said deposit should be paid to anyone because the seizure and collection order of the Plaintiff’s 25 creditors, including the Defendant, competes with each other. Therefore, it is difficult to know who to whom the deposit should be paid.