1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

1. The reasoning of this Court is that the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this Court cites this as it is.

2. Determination

A. In a case where an amount of release from provisional seizure is deposited in lieu of the object of judgment on the plaintiff's right to claim payment of dividends, the effect of such provisional seizure is not itself but against the debtor's right to claim the recovery of the deposit (see Supreme Court Order 95Ma252, Nov. 11, 1996). As to the deposit from provisional seizure, there is no right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit by the creditor of provisional seizure, and it is limited to the debtor's right to claim the recovery of

The right to claim for recovery of the deposit from the provisional seizure debtor is a claim under the condition that the cause of the deposit is terminated. Thus, in order for the depositor who is the provisional seizure debtor to recover the deposit from the court of the merits, the provisional seizure is revoked or the provisional seizure is revoked or the provisional seizure is agreed with the creditor of the provisional seizure, etc., the extinction of the cause of the deposit should be proved.

According to the facts established in the first instance court, the instant final judgment was rendered regarding the instant case’s lawsuit on the merits of the instant provisional attachment decision, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 160,945,261 with interest and interest based on the instant final judgment on April 5, 2017, and the Plaintiff was issued the revocation order of provisional attachment on September 12, 2017 on the ground that the instant provisional attachment revocation order was extinguished by depositing KRW 160,945,261 based on the instant final judgment.

In light of these facts in light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff may demand the payment of dividends on the deposit money in the Seoul Northern District Court D distribution procedure case based on the right to claim the recovery of deposit money.

B. The provisional attachment obligee as to whether the claim for dividend payment based on the assignment order of this case exists is determined on the defendant's right to claim dividend payment.