The claim for payment of deposit can not be claimed to pay the deposit solely on the ground that the claim for payment of deposit reverts to the Plaintiff.

As long as the seizure of the Defendants against the claim for compensation for losses or the claim for payment of deposit money is valid, there is a position that compulsory execution should be accepted. Thus, a claim for confirmation that the claim for payment of deposit shall revert to the Plaintiff before the completion of the distribution procedure of the deposit for execution shall not be made to claim payment of deposit money.

2012 Confirmation of claims for payment of deposit money 537060

IsaA

1. Korea Asset Management Corporation; 2. Korea Credit Guarantee Fund; 4.B.

1. The successor intervenor

CCC Holdings Asset Loan Co.

July 11, 2013

August 12, 2013

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

Cheong-gu Office

On January 25, 2011, it is confirmed that the non-party Korea Land and Housing Corporation has the right to claim for payment of deposit money against OOOs deposited by the District Court No. 334 in 2011.

1. Basic facts

(a) Possession of real estate;

1) Since May 23, 1984, Nonparty 2, E, E, E, and EF had a single-half share of 329-12 m2 m2, each of which is 329-122 m2 m2 in OO in BB, OO 329-121 m2, and 3,832 m2 m2, respectively, (hereinafter “instant land”). He left from the partnership relationship by the death of March 10, 1994, and accordingly, the instant land became a combination of EE and EF.

2) The non-party Korea Land and Housing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the "Non-party Korea Land and Housing Corporation") accepted the instant land in connection with the urban planning and road project BB, and determined the compensation for E and EF (hereinafter referred to as the "the instant compensation for losses") as OO.

(b) Deposit, etc. of compensation;

1) On April 12, 2010, the Defendant Korea Asset Management Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Corporation”) received a seizure and collection order with respect to the claims for compensation for losses against EE’s non-party corporation as the District Government District Court 210 Tage5435, and the above seizure and collection order reached the non-party corporation on April 15, 2010. The Defendant Credit Guarantee Fund (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendant Fund”) received a seizure and collection order with respect to the claims for compensation for losses against E’s non-party corporation as the District Court 2010 Tage13176 on August 10, 2010, and the above seizure and collection order reached the non-party corporation on August 13, 2010. The director of the District Tax Office affiliated with the Defendant under the Republic of Korea attached the claims for compensation against the non-party corporation on November 4, 2010, and the seizure notification reached the non-party corporation on October 19, 2010.

2) On January 25, 2011, the non-party Corporation deposited the instant land compensation OOOOOOOO in the Jung-gu District Court No. 334, 201 (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”). In the statutory section section, the non-party Corporation tried to receive payment from the Corporation under Article 717 of the Civil Act, "E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, E, and FF in the deposit column, and the deposit cause column "in the case of accepting the instant land, the deposit was made by the depositor on the register of the land (1/6 respectively), E, E, D, and E, E, E, E, E, and EF on the register of the register of the land in which the depositor died on March 10, 194, and thus, I tried to receive payment from the Corporation and E, the remaining OOOOOOOOOEF on the land under Article 717 of the Civil Act, and thus, tried to obtain payment from the Corporation 1 and E.2.

3) On October 31, 201, Defendant BB seized E’s right to claim payment of deposit money against the Republic of Korea on E, and the notification of seizure reached the Republic of Korea on November 2, 2011. Meanwhile, the Defendant’s succeeding intervenor transferred the claim against E from the Defendant Corporation on August 28, 2012, and notified the transfer to E on September 28, 201.

C. Plaintiff’s acquisition of bonds

On February 1, 201, the EE and EF transferred the right to claim the payment of the deposit money for the above compensation to the Nonparty to the Nonparty, and the notification of the transfer reached the Republic of Korea on February 9 of the same year. On the other hand, this GG transferred the right to claim the payment of the deposit money again on September 21, 2012 to the Plaintiff, and the notification of the transfer reached the Republic of Korea on October 11 of the same year.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 24, Eul evidence No. 1 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence No. 1 to 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 to 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion

The right to claim the payment of deposit money for the compensation for losses deposited by the non-party Corporation is the partnership property, and the defendants merely are the creditors of the EE individual, and the seizure and collection of the claims by the defendants is null and void, and the defendants are not entitled to demand the payment of deposit money. Therefore, the plaintiff who was transferred the right to claim the payment of deposit money from EE and EF seeks confirmation that the plaintiff had the right to claim the payment

B. The defendants' assertion

Since the deposit of this case constitutes an execution deposit, and the person entitled to claim the payment of the deposit is determined at the time when the distribution procedure of the execution deposit is fully completed, insofar as the Plaintiff, who is in the status of execution obligor, does not dispute the validity of the seizure and collection order itself in the compulsory execution procedure of the Defendants, there is no benefit of confirmation as to the reversion of the right to claim the payment of the deposit to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. The deposit is made under his/her responsibility and judgment. The depositor may select the deposit for repayment, the execution deposit, or the mixed deposit in accordance with his/her own will. Whether the depositor has made any kind of deposit among them shall be determined by comprehensively and reasonably taking into account whether the deposited person is designated, the statutory provisions that provide the basis for the deposit, the fact of the cause of deposit, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da74693, May 15, 2008). Meanwhile, in the combined deposit, if one of the several depositeds submits a document proving that he/she has the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods in relation to the other depositeds and the execution creditors, one of them may request the withdrawal of the deposited goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012).

B. On the premise of the above legal principles, the deposit of this case is deemed to be a mixed deposit with the nature of the repayment deposit caused by EE and EF’s creditor’s unrecognizability because the non-party Corporation could not know the exact joint preservation of E and EF’s claims for compensation for losses or EF’s joint property. However, in terms of the execution deposit, the Plaintiff is in the status of the obligor to acquire the claim subject to limitations on seizure and collection order. Accordingly, the Plaintiff is in the status of the obligor to acquire the claim subject to seizure and collection order. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek confirmation of the legal interest of E and E-F’s claim for compensation for losses, as long as the Defendant’s claims for compensation for losses or claims for payment for payment of the E-E are valid due to the lack of knowledge of creditors’ identity. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot seek confirmation of the legal interest of E-E and E-F’s claim for compulsory execution before the expiration of the seizure order.

4. Conclusion

Thus, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed.