In the case of mixed deposits, the execution creditor may not seek confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money.

Since the Republic of Korea is a seized bond, the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money against the Republic of Korea is unlawful.

Daejeon District Court 2016Kadan216127

Economic Zone

Korea

December 16, 2016

oly 13, 2017

1. Whether the plaintiff's action against the defendant in Korea is legitimate

A. The parties' assertion

The Plaintiff seeks confirmation against the Defendant Republic of Korea that the claim for payment of the deposit money stated in the purport of the claim (hereinafter referred to as the “deposit money”) is against the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant Republic of Korea has no interest in the confirmation of the claim against the Defendant Republic of Korea, who is not the recipient of the deposit money of this case.

B. Determination

In addition to the above, the non-party AB Co., Ltd. has the obligation to pay the goods to the non-party BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant BB"), and the non-party BB Co., Ltd. has the obligation to pay the goods to the non-party BB Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party BB"), for which the transferee of the claim was the plaintiff, the notification of the assignment of claims as of February 20, 2014, the notification of the assignment of claims as of February 25, 2014, and the defendant DD (hereinafter referred to as "Defendant DD")'s notification of the transfer as of February 25, 2014, and the provisional seizure as of February 24, 2014 as of the non-party BB Co., Ltd., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party B") to the non-party B B B Co., Ltd., Ltd., and the head of the tax office of Daejeon 2014.

According to the above facts, the deposit of this case is deemed to be a mixed deposit with the nature of repayment deposit and enforcement deposit in comprehensive consideration of the relevant statutory provisions and the statement of the source of deposit. In such cases, the Plaintiff, one of the parties to whom the deposit was made, may file a claim for the withdrawal of the deposited goods with a document attesting that there has been a claim for the withdrawal of the deposited goods in relation to Defendant BB, CCC, and Defendant DD, who is another depositor, and the enforcement creditor (see Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012). As such, there is no benefit to seek the confirmation of the above claim for the withdrawal of the deposited goods against the Defendant Republic of Korea, the tax payer, who seized the above claim for the withdrawal of the deposited goods after the deposit of this case.

C. Sub-committee

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Republic of Korea is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.