beta
Text
1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment citing the judgment of the first instance court is as follows: (a) the first instance court’s judgment citing the first instance court’s judgment citing the first instance judgment 6, 4, 6, 6, 4, as “the second seizure”; and (b) the following parts are added to the written judgment of the first instance court; (c) thus,
2. The Defendants additionally asserted that the Plaintiff did not have any obligation to pay to the Plaintiff any more because they could not identify the obligee on the grounds of assignment of claims and concurrent seizure, etc., due to the total amount of the collection money deposited to the Plaintiff pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act. Thus, according to the entries in the evidence Nos. 9-1, 2, and 10, Defendant DSIB’s deposit amount of KRW 40,845,90 on March 6, 2014 (No. 565, 2014, Incheon District Court Deposit No. 18,087,90 on the same day (No. 5666, Mar. 26, 2014), Defendant DSID deposited the money with each court deposit number of KRW 18,087,90 on the same day (No. 2014, No. 56666, Jul. 26, 2014); Defendant B deposited the money with each court deposit number of KRW 27014.
The deposit is made under the responsibility and judgment of the depositor under his/her own account and the depositor may select the repayment deposit, the execution deposit or the mixed deposit in accordance with his/her own will, and whether the depositor has made any kind of deposit among them, shall be determined by comprehensively and reasonably taking into account whether the deposited person is designated, the statutory provisions that serve as the basis for the deposit, the fact of the cause of the deposit, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012), and the evidence No. 9-1, No. 2, and No. 10 of the evidence No. 9-2, No. 10, the defendants shall be the deposited person, and the fact that the deposited person is the plaintiff, F, the lender, the lender, and the Seocho Tax Office entered the cause of the deposit as the creditor under the provisions of Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, and therefore, the deposit by the defendants of this case shall
However, the Civil Execution Act is the same.