1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against defendant C and defendant D shall be dismissed, respectively.

2. Defendant C on March 3, 2016

1. On March 3, 2016, Defendant C deposited KRW 20,274,985 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Defendant B or the Plaintiff (A) at the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 20149, the Seoul Southern District Court deposited KRW 20,274,985 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) as a statutory provision, and entered the cause of deposit in the separate sheet as the cause of deposit under Article 487 latter part of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 4, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against Defendant C and D

A. In the case of a relative uncertainty deposit, in order for one of the deposited parties to claim a return of deposited goods to claim a return of deposited goods, there is a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other deposited parties to claim a return of deposited goods against the other deposited parties or the other deposited parties to claim a return of deposited goods. In such a case, there is no benefit of confirmation to claim a return of deposited goods against a third party other than the deposited parties.

(Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596 Decided October 23, 2008). B.

According to the above facts, the deposited person designated by Defendant C in the deposit of this case is only Defendant B and the Plaintiff, and the Defendant Company is not indicated as the deposited person, so the Defendant Company is not the deposited person in the deposit of this case, and even if Defendant C entered the fact that it received the claim seizure and collection order (Seoul Southern District Court 2015TTTT15TTT15185) by Defendant D (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) due to the cause of deposit under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act as a statutory provision in the deposit of this case, it cannot be viewed differently.

C. Thus, the lawsuit claiming that the right to claim the deposit of this case against Defendant D and Defendant C, who is not the principal, is unlawful in the deposit of this case.

3. Comprehensively taking account of each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 3 above, Defendant B’s assertion as to September 4, 2013.