1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. The Plaintiff asserted that on November 22, 2017, the Plaintiff received the refund of the deposit for lease from G Co., Ltd. with F from G Co., Ltd., and sought confirmation that the F Co., Ltd.’s claim for payment of the deposit, as stated in the purport of the claim, exists.

In this regard, Defendant D did not have any interest in seeking confirmation of the right to claim the payment of deposit, because the Plaintiff was not the person to whom the deposit was made or provisional attachment.

B. The right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods is the person who is the principal of the deposited goods or his successor, and the person who is the principal of the deposited goods is specified in the form of the statement of the deposited goods. Thus, even if a creditor under substantive law is not designated as the principal of the deposited goods, the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods cannot be exercised unless the principal of the deposited goods is designated as the principal of the deposited goods. Therefore, even if a person who is not the principal of the deposited goods has received a judgment confirming the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against the principal of the deposited goods, the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods does not directly lead to the third party who is not the principal of the deposited goods. The confirmation judgment does not fall under the "

Therefore, unless there are circumstances such as the collection creditor who has received a seizure and collection order with respect to the claim for withdrawal of deposited goods by designating one of the deposited persons as the debtor, the person other than the deposited person has no profit to seek confirmation of the claim for withdrawal of deposited goods against the deposited person.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 93Ma1470, Dec. 15, 1993; 2005Da674776, Aug. 25, 2006). According to each of the statements and arguments and the whole purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 7, Defendant E leased a house from F, paid KRW 140,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000