In the case of the so-called creditor's relative non-afford payment deposit made by the transferor of credit or the transferee of credit as the beneficiary, if the facts of the cause of deposit are stated in the provisional attachment of the third party or other third party's right to claim the payment of the deposit after the above deposit are provisionally attached, whether the assignee of the claim constitutes "a document proving that the final judgment of winning the claim for payment of the deposit against the transferor of credit has the right to claim the payment of the deposit under Article 30

In a case where the obligor has deposited the so-called creditor's relative uncertainty deposit under Article 487 of the Civil Act in which the assignee of the claim or the assignee of the claim is the person to whom the deposit has been made, the third party cannot be the person to whom the deposit was made, even though the fact of the cause of the deposit is stated in the provisional seizure by the third party, and the final and conclusive judgment in favor of the assignee of the claim against the assignee of the claim who is the only other depositor of the above deposit is "a document proving that the assignee of the claim has the right to claim the return of the deposit under Article 8 (1) of the Deposit Act and Article 30 (2) of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Business", so long as the assignee of the claim has requested the return of the deposit along with the above judgment, the deposit officer shall accept it, and even if another third party has seized the right to claim the return

Article 8 (1) of the Deposit Act, Article 30 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs

New Bank Co., Ltd. (Law Firm Pacific, Attorneys Kim Man-man et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Seoul District Court Order 99Ra1036 dated June 12, 1999

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

According to the records of this case, on June 17, 1997, the KGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGG.

In such a case, the deposit of this case constitutes the so-called creditor's relative non-defluence deposit under Article 487 of the Civil Act, the deposit of this case constitutes the so-called creditor's relative non-defluence deposit, and even though the fact that the reason for the deposit of this case is stated in the provisional seizure by the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund, the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund cannot be the principal deposit of the deposit of this case. The final judgment in favor of the applicant for confirmation of the right to claim the return of the deposit of this case constitutes "documents proving that the applicant has the right to claim the return of the deposit of this case under Article 8 (1) of the Deposit Act and Article 30 (2) of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs", so long as the applicant filed the request for the return of the deposit of this case with the above judgment attached, the deposit official shall be accepted as the public official. It does not interfere with the provisional seizure

Nevertheless, the court below held that it is reasonable for the applicant to accept the claim for the payment of the deposit of this case by the deposit official who has only formal examination authority to the deposit of this case, because the Korea Credit Guarantee Fund and the applicant for the deposit of this case were provisionally seized, and the above judgment only confirmed that the applicant has the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case. Thus, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles on the deposit of this case and the document proving that the applicant has the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. Accordingly, the ground for re-appeal pointing this out has merit.

Therefore, the order of the court below shall be reversed, and the case shall be remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Cho Chang-chul (Presiding Justice)