[1] In the deposit for repayment, in a case where a person who is not the person to whom the deposit was made receives a judgment confirming the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods against the person to whom the deposit was made, whether a direct claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods may be made (negative), and in a case where the actual ratio of equity of the deposited person is different from the

[2] Whether Gap may claim against Eul for the confirmation of the right to claim payment of deposit money against Eul as to the deposit for repayment made between Gap and Eul as the person to whom Eul made a deposit (each share 1/2) (negative)

[1] The right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money is determined formally by the statement in the deposit document, so even if a creditor under substantive law is a creditor of the deposited money, the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money may not be exercised if the deposited money is not designated as the deposited money. Therefore, even if a third party, other than the deposited money, has received a judgment of confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money against the deposited money, the verified third party cannot directly claim the withdrawal of deposited money, and in case where the deposited money is deposited as the deposited money with equal equity interest in the deposited money, each party of the deposited money can claim the withdrawal of deposited money equivalent to the share specified in the deposit document, and even if the actual equity ratio inside the deposited money is different from the equity ratio in the deposit document, this is a matter to be resolved separately among the deposited money parties.

[2] In a case where a debtor deposits the amount for which Gap and Eul are to be paid in accordance with the final judgment of the court, with Gap and Eul as the person to be deposited (each share) and Eul as the person to be deposited, Gap and Eul are merely entitled to claim a withdrawal of the deposit amount corresponding to one-half share of each of the above deposit amount, and there is no designation between Gap and Eul as the person to be deposited. Thus, the other party cannot claim a confirmation of the right to claim a withdrawal of the deposit amount against the other party as to the excess

[1] Article 487 of the Civil Code, Article 29 (2) (f) of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs / [2] Article 487 of the Civil Code, Article 29 (2) (f) of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

Korea

The Korea Technology Finance Corporation (Law Firm Han-won, Attorney Park So-young et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Daejeon High Court Decision 2005Na1825 Decided October 13, 2005

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

We examine the grounds of appeal.

The right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money is determined formally by the statement of the deposit. Thus, even if a creditor under substantive law is a creditor of the deposit, the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money may not be exercised unless it is designated as the person under substantive law. Therefore, even if a third party, who is not the person under deposit, was rendered a judgment to confirm the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money against the person under deposit, the third party who was rendered the judgment cannot directly make a claim for the withdrawal of deposited money, and in case where the deposit is made with the person under whose interest the deposit has equal equity in the deposit, each party is entitled to claim the withdrawal of deposited money equivalent to the share amount as stated in the deposit document, and even if the actual equity ratio of the deposited person inside the deposit differs from the equity ratio in the deposit document, this is a matter to be resolved separately between the parties under substantive law.

According to the records, in a case where a lawsuit seeking revocation of a fraudulent act filed by the plaintiff and the defendant against the non-party who are the beneficiary was combined, "the non-party to the defendant was sentenced to the plaintiffs (the plaintiff and the defendant in this case) to pay 220,428,536 won and 5% interest per annum from the day following the day when this judgment became final and conclusive until the day after full payment was made. The above judgment became final and conclusive, and the non-party intended to pay the principal and interest of the above judgment to the plaintiff and the defendant, but the plaintiff and the defendant were refused to receive the dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant, and the defendant were paid the principal and interest of the judgment at the Cheongju District Court on January 7, 2004 and the defendant as the principal and interest of the above judgment were deposited as the principal and interest of the defendant as the principal and interest of the defendant. Thus, as long as the non-party deposited the plaintiff and the defendant as the principal under the final and conclusive judgment, the plaintiff and the defendant did not have any excess interest in the claim against the defendant's deposit.

In addition, according to the records, the plaintiff asserted that his tax claim takes precedence over the defendant's claim for reimbursement, and confirmed that his claim for payment of the above deposit is the plaintiff, and the plaintiff's litigation performer does not accept a settlement plan in proportion to the ratio of the amount of the claim that the defendant proposed at the date of the preparatory proceedings for pleadings for pleadings for pleadings for the first instance. Thus, the plaintiff's claim for payment of the deposit of this case does not contain the purport of confirming that the part equivalent to the amount of the plaintiff's claim out of the claim for payment of this case should be included in the plaintiff's claim for payment of this case, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal for appeal of this case. The plaintiff's claim for payment of the deposit of this case should be attributed in proportion to the plaintiff's claim for payment of the deposit of this case and the defendant's claim for

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)