[1] The interest in an objection against a disposition by a deposit officer

[2] The case holding that an objection against the disposition taken by the deposit official is unlawful on the ground that there is no benefit, in case where the deposit official rejected the claim for the payment of deposit money of all creditors on the ground that there is a provisional seizure preceding the provisional seizure and filed a report on the ground of concurrent seizure

[1] Although there is no limit on the same period of application as an immediate appeal with respect to the disposition of the deposited public official related to the handling of deposited affairs, if the public official seeks to order the revocation of the disposition, etc. by an objection against the disposition of the deposited public official, and if the deposited public official becomes unable to take any disposition any longer in relation to the deposited affairs, the objection shall not be filed because there is no benefit of the objection.

[2] In case where the whole creditor of the right to claim deposit collection claims against the deposited public official for the entire amount of the deposit, but the deposited public official filed a report on the reason of competition of seizure pursuant to Article 581 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 52 of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs, barring special circumstances, the execution court shall commence the distribution procedure unless there are special circumstances, and thereafter the deposited public official may pay the deposit to each creditor in installments in accordance with the distribution procedure of the execution court and shall not be in the position of any disposition any longer in relation to the deposit case. Therefore, the objection against the disposition by the deposited public official in this case is unlawful as there is no benefit.

[1] Article 226 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 10 of the Deposit Act / [2] Article 581 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 10 of the Deposit Act, Article 52 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs

[Judgment of the court below]

Jeonju District Court Order 2000Ra63 dated April 12, 2000

The reappeal is dismissed.

Before determining the grounds for re-appeal, we examine ex officio whether the objection against the disposition of the deposited public official of this case is legitimate.

An objection against a disposition by a deposit officer related to the handling of deposit affairs does not have the same period of application as an immediate appeal, but an objection is filed while there is a benefit of objection and still exists a continuing existence, so if a deposit officer seeks to order a considerable disposition such as cancellation of the disposition, etc. by an objection against the disposition by the deposit officer, if the deposit officer becomes unable to make any disposition any longer in relation to the deposit affairs, the objection cannot be made because there is no benefit of objection.

However, according to the records, the re-appellant, based on the name of debt against the Re-Appellant Co., Ltd. (hereinafter only referred to as the "new product") and the non-re-appellant, filed a claim for the recovery of deposit amount of KRW 179,002,220 out of the deposit collection claim amount of KRW 300 million deposited by the previous court No. 1866 of September 11, 1997 by the previous district court No. 97 as of Sep. 11, 1997, the Re-Appellant filed a claim for the recovery of deposit amount of KRW 179,002,220 out of the deposit collection claim amount deposited by the previous district court No. 18666, Oct. 20, 199. However, the deposit official filed a claim for the recovery of deposit amount to the previous district court on Oct. 20, 199.

If a deposited public official files a report on the reason of competition with respect to the right to claim for recovery of deposit in accordance with Article 581 of the Civil Procedure Act and Article 52 of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs, a court of execution shall commence the distribution procedure unless there are special circumstances, and thereafter, the deposited public official may pay the deposit in installments to each creditor according to the distribution procedure of the court of execution and shall not be in the position to take any disposition any longer with respect to the deposit case. Therefore, the objection against the disposition of the deposited public official of this case is unlawful as there

Nevertheless, the first instance court and the lower court deemed this as legitimate and determined on the merits shall be deemed to have erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the interest in objection against the disposition of the deposit official, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. However, the lower court’s conclusion that rejected the objection of this case and the lower court’s decision that maintained it is justifiable, and such errors by the lower court are not affected by the outcome, and thus, cannot be deemed the grounds

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

Justices Lee Han-gu (Presiding Justice)