1. The defendant succeeding intervenor's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant succeeding intervenor.

purport.

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420

2. The parties' assertion

A. A person holding a right to security against a judicial security deposit for the plaintiff shall have the same right as the pledgee.

Even if the Plaintiff performed the right to the deposit of this case by means of the cancellation of security upon obtaining a decision of seizure and collection order of the instant claim where the judgment of the instant damages was executed without using the method of exercising the right of pledge, it is merely a method for paying the deposit money, not a waiver or loss of the status of the pledgee.

Therefore, even if the Defendant’s prior assignment order became final and conclusive prior to the Plaintiff’s decision on the seizure and collection order of the instant claim, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor cannot oppose the Plaintiff.

B. Since the decision to revoke the security of the Defendant succeeding Intervenor was to extinguish the security relationship, the Plaintiff’s preferential status as the secured obligee was extinguished at the same time upon receiving the decision to revoke the security regarding the instant deposit.

Article 4(4) of the Regulations on Procedure for the Payment, etc. of Security Deposit (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of this case”) enacted on July 25, 2003 provides only a seizure, etc. for the enforcement of a pledge directly by the method of exercising the security right of the secured right holder, and stipulates that a decision to revoke a security shall not be made upon the submission of a decision to revoke a security.

If a decision to revoke a security is submitted, it shall follow the general compulsory execution procedure, and since the defendant became final and conclusive with the whole order prior to other creditors, it is legitimate to distribute dividends to the defendant succeeding intervenor in the first order.

3. Determination

A. The security provided by the provisional disposition obligor in the case of revocation of provisional disposition by special circumstances shall be subject to provisional disposition, even though the provisional disposition obligee won the lawsuit on the merits.