(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.02 2018가단32164

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.02 2018가단32164

공탁금출금청구권 확인의 소

Text

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On January 201, 2014, the Plaintiff seeking confirmation as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit, as the Plaintiff received the claim against D from the Defendant, and thus, sought confirmation that the claim for payment of the deposit stated in the purport of the claim the D repaid was to himself/herself.

Inasmuch as the person entitled to claim the withdrawal of deposited money is the principal of the deposited money or his successor, and the principal of the deposited money is specified in the form by the statement of the deposited money, even if the creditor under substantive law is not designated as the principal of the deposited money, the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money cannot be exercised unless the principal of the deposited money is designated as the principal of the deposited money. Therefore, even if a person other than the principal of the deposited money has been rendered a judgment confirming the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money against the principal of the deposited money, his qualification does not directly lead to a third party who is not the principal of the deposited money. The confirmation judgment does not constitute “a document attesting that he has the right to claim the withdrawal” under Article 30 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs, and thus, it cannot be directly claimed the withdrawal of deposited money by the person who has received the confirmed judgment, barring any special circumstance such as the creditor who received the seizure and collection order against his claim for the withdrawal of deposited

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Order 93Ma1470, Dec. 15, 1993; Supreme Court Order 2005Da674776, Aug. 25, 2006). The Plaintiff asserted that the claim was transferred prior to the deposit of D, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the claim was issued with the seizure and collection order, and thus, the instant lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.

2. The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

참조조문

-공탁사무처리규칙 제30조 제2호

참조판례

-대법원 1993. 12. 15. 자 93마1470 결정

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.01.23 2018가단10286

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.01.30 2019가단80005

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.12.17 2019나31389

-창원지방법원 2020.09.24 2020가합52866