[1] Whether a collection creditor who received a collection order under his/her own name may file a lawsuit seeking confirmation that the claim for payment of payment of payment of the deposited goods against another person under its own name is the debtor with respect to the claim for payment of payment of the deposited goods by designating one of the persons under the deposit for payment of the relative uncertainty (affirmative)

[2] Court's explanation and cadastral duty as to legal matters

[3] The case holding that in a case where Gap filed a lawsuit against Byung as the obligor Eul and Eul as the obligor Eul, and Eul as the obligor Eul as to the claim for the return of deposited goods, and Eul as the obligor Eul's claim for the return of deposited goods, and Eul filed a lawsuit to confirm the claim for the return of deposited goods, the court below erred by failing to point out the legal inconsistency between the cause of the claim and the claim for return of deposited goods in the court of law, and failing to give the opportunity to make statements again, and failing to confirm that Gap's claim for the return of deposited goods is the obligor, the plaintiff is not the obligor, and the plaintiff's claim for the return of deposited goods is confirmed as the obligor, and although Gap filed a lawsuit to have the claim for the return of deposited goods confirmed as the obligor's subrogated claim for the return of deposited goods, the court below erred by failing to exhaust all the duty to confirm that Gap's claim for return of deposited goods is not the obligor's right to claim the return of deposited goods.

[1] In cases of a deposit for repayment on the ground of a creditor's relative uncertainty under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, one of the deposited parties may file a claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods by submitting a written consent from other deposited parties or a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the creditor to confirm the claim for withdrawal of deposited goods that he/she received against the other deposited parties. According to Article 229 (2) of the Civil Execution Act, a collection creditor who received a seizure and a collection order may exercise the debtor's right necessary for collection in his/her own name and outside of court without the subrogation procedure. As such, a collection creditor who received a collection order may file a lawsuit to confirm that the claim for withdrawal of deposited goods has been filed against other deposited parties under his/her own name to withdraw deposited goods.

[2] Article 136(4) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "the court shall give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions on the legal matters which are recognized as clear as being the parties to the case." Thus, in a case where there is a clear and unreasonable legal matter due to the negligence or misunderstanding of the parties, or where the allegations of the parties have been inconsistent or obscure from the legal point of view, the court shall actively exercise the right to explain and give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions, and if the parties have neglected to state their opinions,

[3] The case holding that the court below reasoned that Gap did not take any measure against Gap's right to request the release of deposited goods and Eul's right to request the release of deposited goods and Eul's right to request the release of deposited goods with Eul as debtor Eul and Eul as debtor Eul's other deposited person Eul, and stated Eul as "the plaintiff," Eul's indication as "the plaintiff," and "the plaintiff confirmed as the right to request the release of deposited goods" as "the plaintiff is the right to request the release of deposited goods," and that Eul did not take any measure against Eul's right to request the release of deposited goods with the confirmation of the debtor's right to request the release of deposited goods upon the confirmation of the right to request the release of deposited goods, but the court below stated that "the plaintiff" is one's own right to request the collection of deposited goods and the right to request the collection of deposited goods should be confirmed to the plaintiff under the name of the defendant's right to request the release of deposited goods and the right to request the collection of deposited goods without any inconsistency with Gap's own right to request the collection order and the right to request collection order.

[1] Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 229(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 136(4) of the Civil Procedure Act / [3] Article 487 of the Civil Act, Article 229(2) of the Civil Execution Act, Articles 136(4) and 250 of the Civil Procedure Act

[1] Supreme Court Decision 9Ma4239 delivered on November 30, 199 (Gong2000Sang, 138), Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596 Decided October 23, 2008 (Gong2008Ha, 1586), Supreme Court Decision 2007Da26165 Decided June 23, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 1175) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 2002Da41435 Delivered on January 10, 2003 (Gong203Sang, 621), Supreme Court Decision 2009Da42765 delivered on November 12, 2009 (Gong2009Ha, 208Ha, 2081) and Supreme Court Decision 209Da35979 decided May 29, 2015)

Plaintiff

Limited Liability Company Maritime Comprehensive Heavy Liability Company

Jeonju District Court Decision 2010Na4809 Decided June 10, 2011

The judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Jeonju District Court Panel Division.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods is determined formally by the statement of the deposit. Thus, even if a creditor is a creditor under substantive law, he may not exercise the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods unless it is designated as the person to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da67476, Aug. 25, 2006, etc.). However, in cases of the repayment deposit based on the creditor's relative uncertainty pursuant to the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, one of the deposited parties may claim the withdrawal of deposited goods by submitting a written consent of the other deposited parties or a favorable judgment confirming the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods received against him (see Supreme Court Order 99Ma4239, Nov. 30, 199; Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596, Oct. 23, 2008; Supreme Court Decision 2006Da22976, Feb. 29, 2007).

Meanwhile, Article 136(4) of the Civil Procedure Act provides that “The court shall give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions on legal matters which are clearly recognized as being the parties to the case.” Thus, in a case where there exist any matters of law which are clearly unreasonable due to negligence or misunderstanding or any inconsistency or uncertainty in view of the parties’ allegations from a legal point of view, the court shall actively exercise the right to explain and give the parties an opportunity to state their opinions. In a case where the parties neglected to state their opinions, the court shall not fulfill their duty to explain and point out (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2002Da41435, Jan. 10, 2003; 2009Da83599, Feb. 11, 2010).

2. A. The record reveals the following facts.

(1) On March 5, 2008, the lower court concluded a lease agreement with the lessee’s third-class comprehensive tenant (hereinafter “the third-class comprehensive tenant”) by setting the lease deposit amount of KRW 12 million, and concluded a lease agreement between the lessee and the third-class comprehensive tenant (hereinafter “the third-class comprehensive tenant”) and the Defendant, who received the claim for the return of the lease deposit, was not identified as the genuine creditor. As such, the lower court deposited the leased deposit with the third-class comprehensive tenant or the Defendant on March 5, 2008.

(2) On April 7, 2008, the Plaintiff received a provisional seizure order against the claim amount up to the above claim amount among the claim amount of the deposited goods against the third debtor, with the debtor's claim amount of KRW 8,071,000,000. On July 31, 2008, the Plaintiff issued a provisional seizure order against the claim amount of KRW 8,50,580 against the debtor and the third debtor, and issued a provisional seizure and collection order against the money up to the above claim amount among the claim amount of the deposited goods against the third debtor.

(3) On July 15, 2009, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant for confirmation of the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit, stating that “the Plaintiff is the person entitled to the payment of the instant deposit,” and stated that “the Plaintiff is the person entitled to the payment of the instant deposit, among KRW 8,50,580,580 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) deposited with the Jeonju District Court Nos. 565 in 2008, which was deposited with the Jeonju District Court No. 565 in Jeonju District Court Order No. 2008.” As the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff was subject to the seizure and collection order regarding the right to claim the payment of the deposited deposit of the Samjin Jung Jung Jung Jung Heavy Central District Court, and the Defendant did not take any measures as to the deposited deposit, so the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the person subject to the payment of the obligation after obtaining the confirmation of the right to claim the payment of the deposited deposit as the person subject to the payment of the deposit.”

(4) On the second day for pleading of the lower judgment, the lower court ordered the Plaintiff, who is not the depositee, to clarify whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the right to claim for withdrawal of the deposited goods of this case against the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was the creditor for collection of the right to claim for withdrawal of the deposited goods of this case from the preparatory documents stated on the third day for pleading

(5) On the fourth day for pleading of the lower court, the lower court: (a) stated that “the Plaintiff is himself/herself,” and the purport of the claim is that “the Plaintiff confirms that the right to claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods against the instant deposit is the Plaintiff”; and (b) concluded the pleadings after arranging the indication of the party and the purport of the claim.”

(6) The lower court ex officio, determined that the Plaintiff’s claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods of this case against the Defendant cannot be deemed to have generated the Plaintiff’s status, and thus, determined that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation, and thus, dismissed the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case after cancelling the Plaintiff’s favorable judgment of the first instance court.

B. According to the above legal principles and the above facts, the plaintiff does not assert that the right to claim the return of the deposited goods of this case belongs to himself/herself regardless of the deposit recipient for repayment, in the course of the lawsuit of this case, regardless of whether the right to claim the return of deposited goods of this case is relative and impossible, and it is clear that the plaintiff claims that the right to claim the return of deposited goods of this case among the deposited parties of the deposit for repayment of relative non-refilled amount is exercised as the collection creditor who has received the seizure and collection order as the collection creditor, and there is a benefit to seek confirmation that the right to claim the return of deposited goods of this case against the defendant for the collection of the attached claims, in order to collect the attached claims.

Although the plaintiff did not seek confirmation that the right to claim for the release of deposited goods against the deposited money in the process of correcting the indication of the party and the purport of the claim stated in the complaint at the fourth day for pleading of the court below, and stated that the claim for the release of deposited goods against the deposited money of this case is the plaintiff, which is the debtor of the plaintiff, although the plaintiff stated that the claim for the release of deposited goods against the deposited money of this case was confirmed to be the plaintiff, the plaintiff's above statement is in the status of the creditor of the seized claim even if the plaintiff, who is the principal, has the seizure and collection order due to lack of due to lack of care or legal knowledge. However, since the collection creditor who received the seizure and collection order of seized claims acquired the right to claim for the collection of seized claims, it seems that it was erroneous or did not properly

Thus, the court below should point out the legal inconsistency between the plaintiff's cause of claim and the claim stated in the court and give the plaintiff an opportunity to state his opinion again, thereby confirming the plaintiff's genuine intent and having the plaintiff correct the claim in a reasonable manner.

Nevertheless, solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not take such measures and stated in the court the purport of the claim, the court below revoked the judgment of the court of first instance and dismissed the lawsuit of this case on the ground that the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the right to claim for the release of deposited goods against the instant deposit was not a depositor, and thus, the Plaintiff did not have any interest in confirmation. The court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the interest in confirmation, which did not perform its duty of explanation, thereby adversely affecting

3. Therefore, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Nung-hwan (Presiding Justice)