1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

3. The judgment of the court of first instance is subject to Paragraph (1).

1. The reasons for the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance regarding this case are as follows: (a) the third 13th 13th tier of the judgment of the court of first instance is as “C and M”; (b) the third 15th tier “C March 22, 2018” is as “ March 21, 2018”; and (c) the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance, except for additional determination as to the Defendant’s assertion as set forth in the following (2), are the same as the grounds for the judgment of the court of first instance; and (d) this shall

2. Additional determination

A. The summary of the defendant's assertion and the contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant have both the nature of the fixed amount contract system and the fixed amount contract system. Thus, the plaintiff has the right to receive the payment of the project cost, such as the construction cost actually spent and the proceeds from sale as a result of settling accounts, and there is no right to claim the payment of the balance of the sales contract

(B) In the first instance court, the Plaintiff had already received more money than the total construction cost, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot claim the right to each of the instant deposit.

Judgment

1) Where the obligor is unable to identify the obligee without fault, the obligor is exempted from liability when depositing the subject matter of performance (the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, and the obligee is entitled to claim the payment of deposit money against the depository institution.

At this time, the right to claim the return of deposit held by the creditor who is the deposited party is the right to substitute the original claim against the debtor. Thus, the subject of the ownership and the scope of the right are determined by the legal relationship in which the original claim is established

Therefore, in a case where the obligor sought confirmation of the existence of the right to claim the return of the deposit against the other deposited parties by depositing the repayment of the relative uncertainty because it is impossible for the obligor to know who is the true creditor, one of the deposited parties can exercise the original claim in the legal relationship between the deposited parties and the obligor who is the deposited parties.