Appropriateness of the disposition of the public official who rejected the claims for recovery of deposited goods on the grounds that the claims for recovery of deposited goods are provisionally seized

As long as the decision of provisional seizure on the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods is lawful in the method of the provisional seizure, even if the contents are invalid, if the contents are issued and delivered to the debtor and the third debtor, in other words, it cannot be considered that the decision of provisional seizure is invalid and invalid. Therefore, the disposition by the public official who accepted the claim of the above claim of the withdrawal of deposited goods is justifiable on the ground that the above claim of the withdrawal of deposited goods

Article 10 of the Deposit Act

Supreme Court Order 82Ma73 Decided March 25, 1983

Re-appellant

Seoul District Court Order 10.2, 1985No496 Decided October 2, 1985

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal are examined.

According to the records and reasoning of the order of the court below, a depository reinforcement industry corporation as the re-appellant who will receive deposited money on August 1, 1985 and deposited 22,776,414 won as Seoul District Court Southern Branch of 85Hun-Ma5399 as the above supporting public official. On the same day, other than the creditor of the above depositor filed an application for provisional seizure of the above deposit collection claim for provisional seizure against the debtor's reinforcement industry corporation as the creditor of the above deposit, the third debtor as the Republic of Korea, and the above claim for recovery of deposited money was provisionally seized on the same day after the provisional seizure claim was filed by the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office around 10:23, 1985, and the above supporting public official was notified of the provisional seizure claim of this case from the Seoul District Public Prosecutor's Office around 17:15, and did not accept the provisional seizure order on the same day.

However, as long as the provisional attachment decision is lawful in its method, even if its contents are invalid, if it is issued and served on the debtor and the third debtor, it cannot be examined whether the provisional attachment decision was void or not. Thus, the disposition of the deposit officer who rejected the claim for the recovery of the deposit of this case on the ground that the above claim for the recovery of the deposit of this case was provisionally seized shall be justified, and therefore, the confirmation of substantial legal relationship with the above claim for the collection of the deposit of this case cannot be resolved separately as the relation between the parties, and this conclusion shall not be different in the case where the court appeals against the above disposition of the deposit officer.

Therefore, the order of the court below that dismissed the appeal against the disposition of the deposit official who did not accept the claim for the payment of the deposit money of this case is just and there is no different opinion.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)