The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. As to the ground of appeal on the establishment of the right to claim restitution of unjust enrichment

A. 1) Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act provides that “The third party obligor may deposit the total amount of monetary claims related to the seizure” so that all of the claims related to the seizure can be deposited without considering the creditor’s request for deposit, request for collection and concurrentness. Of the deposit, the amount of monetary claims which have the effect of seizure should be naturally considered as the execution deposit. However, given that the amount exceeding the seizure amount does not have the effect of seizure, it shall be deemed as the execution deposit rather than the execution deposit. In this case, the effect of blocking the subscription of dividends under Article 247(1) of the Civil Execution Act arises only for the execution deposit premised on distribution. As such, it is not likely that the effect of blocking the subscription of dividends by reporting the reason of the third obligor’s deposit may not arise with regard to the portion corresponding to the repayment deposit. In addition, where a creditor has been subject to seizure and collection order with respect to the obligor’s right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit after making a report on the reason of the deposit, it cannot be deemed that the claim falls under the execution deposit has already been cancelled and its validity.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da23110, Aug. 24, 2006). Meanwhile, even if there was a seizure and collection order against a monetary claim, it is compulsory execution.