Seoul Central District Court-2017-Ga group-503431 ( October 18, 2017)

Since the deposit of this case constitutes a mixed deposit, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the claim for payment of the deposit of this case.

Since the deposit of this case constitutes a mixed deposit, there is a benefit to seek confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit against the Defendants as the obligor, transferee, and execution creditor, who are the deposited parties.

2017Na74582 Confirmation of Claim for Payment of Deposit

AA

Korea

Seoul Central District Court Decision 2017Gadan503431

April 20, 2018

July 13, 2018

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The case is remanded to the court of first instance.

Cheong-gu and purport of appeal

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked. The Seoul Central District Court 201x goldxxx made by the Seoul Central District Court.

Of 000 won, the Seoul Eastern District Court 201xxxxxx amount to be paid to the debtor CCC is confirmed to be the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On August 11, 2010, Seoul Special Metropolitan City: (a) implement private investment projects for performance halls specializing in OO multiple complexes;

With the termination of the Convention, the sum of KRW 000,00,000, and interest for delay, to be paid to BB (hereinafter “BB”), was deposited as the Seoul Central District Court 201xxxxxx, and the Seoul East Eastern District Court 201xxxxxxxxx, which was conducted with respect to the above deposit, was distributed to Defendant CCC on November 29, 2010, and the said dividend became final and conclusive as there was no lawsuit of demurrer to the distribution.

B. The Seoul Eastern District Court on December 5, 2010, with respect to the dividend on the CCC, the Seoul Northern District Court

The Board reported the reasons for attachment competition to the Board, and accordingly, the Seoul Northern District Court 201XT

A court of execution for a case of a capital gains distribution procedure shall have five creditors, including the plaintiff, on December 9, 201 X.

The third debtor sent an order of correction to the effect that the third debtor's Republic of Korea deposited the amount of 000 won at the Seoul Eastern District Court 201XT 200 won (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit of this case") to be paid to the debtor CCC.

C. On the other hand, the reasons up until the deposit of this case is made are as follows.

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap 1 through 8 (including virtual numbers) and the whole pleadings

Purport

2. Determination as to the benefit of confirmation

A. Legal doctrine

In a case where a debtor makes a mixed deposit due to the causes for the repayment deposit in the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and the causes for the execution deposit in the Civil Execution Act Article 248(1) together, if the debtor makes a mixed deposit, the execution court is unable to proceed with the distribution procedure unless the creditor of the original creditor has become final and conclusive to receive the amount deposited through the confirmation of the suspension, invalidity, etc. of the assignment of claims. As such, the creditor who has received the assignment of claims from the above deposit has to prepare and submit a document proving the existence of the right to claim the deposit in the relationship with the execution creditor as well as other deposit parties for receiving the said amount of claims from the above deposit. Therefore, there is a legal interest in seeking confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposited claims against other deposit parties and the execution creditor (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da84076, Jan. 12, 2012).

B. Determination

In light of the above legal principles, the deposit of this case has the effect of the deposit on the ground of relative uncertainty that it is difficult to understand the creditor with respect to the plaintiff who is the assignee of the claim and the defendant DD, and the deposit of this case constitutes a mixed deposit with the effect of the execution deposit against the plaintiff and three other parties (the plaintiff (the transferee of the claim, the creditor of the Seoul Northern District Court 201X District Court 201 XTTTT), and the director's office). Thus, the plaintiff, the execution creditor, must submit to the executing court a document proving that the above deposit belongs to himself for the progress of the above distribution procedure. Thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation against the defendant who is the debtor, the transferee of the claim, and the execution creditor, as the execution creditor, has the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case, and there is a benefit of confirmation as it can be a valid and valid method.

3. Conclusion

Thus, although the lawsuit of this case is lawful, the court of first instance rejected the lawsuit of this case as illegal because it has no interest in confirmation. This judgment of the court of first instance is unfair and thus revoked.

under section 418 of the Civil Procedure Act for the purpose of hearing the merits, the first instance court's law

The case shall be remanded to the Board.