1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 10, 2014, the Plaintiff was running a transportation business under the trade name “D” in Duyang-gun, Namyang-gun, and completed its business registration. On April 20, 2016, the Defendant was running a transportation business under the same trade name at the same place as above, and completed its business registration.

B. On August 8, 2016, the mobilization industry corporation (hereinafter “collaboration industry”) deposited KRW 21,438,800 with the Plaintiff or the Defendant as the principal deposit account in the Gwangju District Court Decision 4622 dated 2016, as follows:

With respect to the transport cost 21,438,800 won to be paid by the mobilization industry, the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that they are the legitimate right holders, and they applied for a payment order against each mobilization industry.

Accordingly, as a mobilization industry, we cannot know exactly who is currently the holder of the above transport cost.

Therefore, I would like to deposit the above transport cost on the ground of relative creditor's uncertainty.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap 1, 5, 7, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is from March 26, 2016 to the same year.

4. The assertion that up to 30.30., the mobilization industry had a claim for the transport cost of KRW 21,438,80 by transporting furniture and other articles.

B. In a case where one of the deposited parties seeks to confirm that one of the deposited parties has a right to claim payment of deposit money against another deposited party because it is impossible to ascertain who is the true creditor of the deposited party, the determination should be based on who can exercise the original claim in the legal relationship between the deposited parties and the deposited parties.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2016Da270049 Decided May 17, 2017). In light of the health care unit and the following circumstances, the Plaintiff submitted and used this case.