Whether the right to deposit money is the plaintiff

Where real estate subject to the obligation to transfer ownership is expropriated and the obligation to transfer ownership becomes impossible, the applicant for registration may seek the return of the compensation paid to the person liable for registration by exercising the right to claim the compensation, or seek the transfer of the right to claim the compensation acquired by the person liable for registration, but the right to claim the compensation for expropriation does not directly belong to the

§ 406. Revocation of Civil Code

2015 plus 203770 Verification of Claim for Payment of Deposit Money

O Co., Ltd.

1. OO;

7. Korea;

January 14, 2016

January 28, 2016

1. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

2. The part of the conjunctive claim in the instant lawsuit is dismissed.

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

On March 13, 2015, it is confirmed that the right to claim deposit withdrawal of KRW 374,006,150 deposited by the Daegu District Court 1OOOO on March 13, 2015 is BBB. Preliminaryly, it is confirmed that the right to claim deposit withdrawal of KRW 374,006,150 deposited by the Daegu District Court 2015 is against the CCC.

1. Basic facts

A. DDR Savings Bank filed a lawsuit against BBB (hereinafter "BB") and EE as Busan District Court 2004Gahap200 on April 7, 2005 against the Plaintiff, the court rendered a judgment that "BB and EE shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million, the amount of KRW 20% per annum from February 25, 2005 to the date of full payment of each of the above amounts, and the amount of KRW 562,961,72, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from February 25, 2005 to the date of full payment." The above judgment was finalized on May 1, 2005 (Evidence 2) (Evidence 2).

B. EE died around 2009, and OO, OO, OO, andOO, who were their children, have renounced inheritance, and CCC, the spouse, was qualified. The Plaintiff, who acquired the above claim against BB from DD Savings Bank, filed a lawsuit claiming ownership transfer registration with CCC under the Daegu District Court 2012 Single OO on behalf of BBB. On July 20, 2012, the court ordered BB BB to remove the above provisional registration on 198 square meters, OOOOO on 646 square meters, 649 square meters, 649, 651, 284 square meters, and 94 square meters on 94 square meters of the title transfer registration, and completed the provisional registration procedure on 960 square meters of the title transfer registration with the Daegu District Court 98 OOM on 1986.10, 1986.

D. On November 18, 2014, the Plaintiff received a claim attachment and collection order with CCC by the Daegu District Court 2014 TachiO, the garnishee North-do, the claim amounting to KRW 205,617,86, and the decision was served on the third debtor Gyeongbuk-do on November 20, 2014 (Evidence A4 and 7). E. On December 3, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued a decision with the debtor CCC, the third debtor Gyeongbuk-do, the claim amounting to KRW 365,159,000, and the provisional injunction for collection (Evidence 5) (Evidence 5).

F. In accordance with Article 40(2)4 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter referred to as the “Land Compensation Act”) and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, as to KRW 374,006,150 of the expropriation compensation for KRW 374,00,00,000,000 for OO-si O-si O-si 642-2, 517 square meters, 643-2, 643-2, 651-2, and 114 square meters (hereinafter referred to as “the instant real estate subject to expropriation”) as an implementer of the fourth-lane road package work for public works on March 13, 2015 and for KRW 248(1)4 of the Civil Execution Act, the deposit was made by the Daegu District Court in accordance with the deposit of the instant case (hereinafter referred to as “No. 60”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion

(1) The primary cause of the claim

Since the reason for the deposit of the Gyeongbuk-do, the depositor of this case, cannot be identified as the creditor due to the attachment of claims by the defendants, the plaintiff's disposal of compensation and the provisional injunction against collection, and there is a seizure of claims, the deposit of this case is a mixed deposit with the nature of the relative non-restability deposit and the execution deposit. The seizure of claims by the defendants who listed the third debtor at OO is not a legitimate seizure, and the BBB is a right holder with regard to the right to the right to the right to the claim for the return of the deposit of this case, and thus, it is affirmed that the right to the claim for the return of the deposited property of this case is against BB.

(2) Even if it does not correspond to the preliminary cause of claim, the Plaintiff seeks a confirmation judgment that the Plaintiff received the seizure and collection order, and against the Defendants, other depositors, the claim for the delivery of deposited goods against CCC, the debtor of the collection claim.

B. The nature of the deposit of this case

A deposit is made under his/her responsibility and judgment, and the depositor may choose the deposit for repayment, the execution deposit, or the mixed deposit according to the judgment of the depositor. Whether the third debtor has made the repayment deposit, whether the execution deposit has been made, or whether the mixed deposit has been made or not shall be determined by comprehensively and reasonably taking into account the designation of the person against whom the deposit was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2006Da74693, May 15, 2008; 2003Da12311, May 26, 2005). The following circumstances revealed by Gap evidence No. 5 and 6 evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the ordinary North Do tried to make the payment of the compensation against the real estate subject to expropriation to the deceased EE heir, who is the landowner, by taking into account the grounds and the contents of the order of collection as to the Plaintiff’s claim subject to expropriation and the Defendants’ seizure and seizure.

According to Article 40 (2) 4 of the Land Compensation Act and Article 248 (1) of the Civil Execution Act, only the time when the payment of compensation is prohibited by the seizure or provisional seizure is stated in the context of the cause of deposit. However, considering the fact that the plaintiff's compensation and the provisional disposition of collection prohibition is also stated in the column of the cause of deposit, and the purport of the above compensation disposition and the provisional disposition of collection prohibition is that the claim of this case belongs to BB, the purport of the compensation claim of this case is that the compensation claim of this case belongs to BB, because it is unclear whether the creditor of the compensation claim is CCC or BBBBB, it is reasonable to see that the deposit of this case is a mixed deposit with the nature of the compensation deposit due to the creditor's seizure of the

In a case where real estate subject to the obligation to transfer ownership is expropriated and the obligation to transfer ownership becomes impossible, the claimant for registration can seek the return of the compensation paid to the person liable for registration by exercising the right to claim the compensation, or seek the transfer of the right to claim the compensation that the person liable for registration acquired by the person liable for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da56910, Oct. 29, 1996). The right to claim the compensation for expropriation does not belong to the claimant for registration (see Supreme Court Decision 95Da56910, Oct. 29, 1996).

D. Determination on the conjunctive claim

On the premise that the deposit in this case is a mixed deposit, the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit while CCC as the genuine creditor of the claim for payment of the compensation in this case. As seen earlier, with respect to the remainder other than the part of the claim for payment of the compensation in BB and CCC, the heir of BB and network EE, it is impossible to identify who is the true creditor of the claim for payment. As to the remainder, the seizure of the Defendants is deemed to have been made by the heir of the network EE or network EE as the debtor, and the execution court shall commence the distribution procedure (Articles 252 and 248 of the Civil Execution Act) when the third debtor has made the execution deposit. The execution court shall commence the distribution procedure (Articles 252 subparagraph 2 and 248 of the Civil Execution Act). The distribution procedure commenced in accordance with the legal judgment of the court of execution as to the priority of each claim of the Plaintiff and the Defendants. The party dissatisfied with the judgment can only dispute by means of a lawsuit of demurrer, etc., and cannot seek confirmation of the claim for payment of payment of execution deposit by separate lawsuit.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is dismissed as it is without merit, and the conjunctive claim of this case is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.