The plaintiff's lawsuit against defendant D and Korea is dismissed respectively.

The plaintiff and the defendant C.

1. The portion of the claim against Defendant C contracted G construction to Company A, and Company A subcontracted the construction of the structure during the above construction to Company A, Company D as the principal deposit for Company A and Defendant C on October 13, 2017, and deposited the amount equivalent to KRW 123,939,202 due to a mixed deposit with the creditor’s unrefient repayment deposit and the execution deposit under this court No. 1905 on October 13, 2017. The fact that the Plaintiff was declared bankrupt on March 13, 2019 that the Plaintiff was entitled to receive KRW 76,02,00,000 for the said deposit, and the fact that the Plaintiff was appointed as the trustee in bankruptcy of the Plaintiff as the trustee in bankruptcy of the Plaintiff is not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by each entry in the evidence No. 1 through No. 4.

Therefore, the plaintiff and defendant C have the right to receive KRW 76,02,00 among the above deposit money, and therefore, they accept the plaintiff's claim.

2. The above Defendants asserted against Defendant D and Korea that the lawsuit of this case against the above Defendants is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation. Thus, in a case where the reasons for the repayment deposit against creditors under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and the reasons for the execution deposit under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act occur together with the reasons for a mixed deposit, and where the debtor made a mixed deposit, it is sufficient to submit a document proving that the deposited person has the right to claim the return of deposited goods in relation to other deposited parties and the execution creditor. Thus, seeking confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposited goods against other persons who are not other deposited parties or execution creditor cannot be deemed as benefit of confirmation.

However, in full view of the facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings is as follows: defendant D and Republic of Korea does not attach claims that constitute the cause of deposit as stated in the claim, but seize C's right to claim the payment of deposit money.