1. The nature of the right of claim for recovery of deposited goods by the depositor for payment deposit;

2. Where the right of the deposited person to claim the withdrawal is rejected in accordance with the attachment and assignment order of another creditor, whether the payment deposit is valid; and

1. Generally, in the deposit for repayment, the right of the depositor to claim the deposit is the right of the depositor to approve the deposit, request the receipt of the deposit to the deposit office, or to cancel the final and conclusive judgment of the validity of the deposit; and

2. The obligee’s right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit has expired by making the obligor deposit and the deposited person claims the withdrawal of the deposit. Even if the deposited official did not accept the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited person based on his/her formal review authority by having the obligor’s other creditors’ right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited amount, the obligee’s right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited amount shall continue to exist only in the effect of the right to claim the withdrawal of another obligee.

Articles 487, 489, and 8 of the Civil Code of Korea

Strengthening Industry Corporation

The Anthale of the believers

1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff is denied based on the judgment of the court in the case of claim such as Seoul Civil District Court 84 Gaz. 84 Gaz. 1916, 85 Gaz. 940, and return of the counterclaim lease deposit.

2. The decision of the same court to suspend compulsory execution in respect of this case shall be approved on June 26, 1987 by 87Ka29071.

3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant.

4. The above paragraph (1) can be provisionally executed.

It is as set out in paragraphs 1 and 3 of this Decree.

The plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant in 1984 concerning the name of the building and the claim for damages on the third floor in Jongno-gu Seoul (number omitted) which the plaintiff leased to the defendant in 1984, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the claim against the plaintiff for the return of deposit money, etc. as a counterclaim against the plaintiff. The plaintiff (the plaintiff) made a lawsuit against the plaintiff for the claim for the return of deposit money, etc. as a counterclaim against the plaintiff. On April 30, 1985, "The plaintiff (the plaintiff) paid 22,776,414 won to the defendant (the defendant) as to the part of the claim for the counterclaim, and the above part of the judgment became final and conclusive at that time because the plaintiff did not file an appeal, and the plaintiff refused to receive the above amount, but the defendant refused to receive it from the defendant on August 1, 1988, and ordered the defendant to pay the above deposit money to the defendant 27,76,414 won to the above defendant (the defendant).

On August 2, 1985, the defendant filed a claim for withdrawal of the above deposit money with the Seoul District Court's Seoul District Court's 1985.8.2, but the non-party 2, who is the plaintiff's creditor, was notified of the above order of non-acceptance of the plaintiff's claim for provisional seizure of 85Ka2975, and the appeal was dismissed by the Supreme Court, but the defendant's claim for withdrawal of deposit money was extinguished by the above order of provisional seizure of 198.3, because the above order of provisional seizure was not issued to the above public official of 19.3, the defendant's claim for withdrawal of deposit money of 2, which was not issued to the above public official of 1,000 Seoul District Court's provisional seizure of 3,000 won, and the above order of provisional seizure of 1,000 won was not issued to the above public official of 2,000 won and the above order of provisional seizure of 3,000 won.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case seeking the exclusion of executory power on the ground of the extinguishment of the defendant's claim based on the above title of debt against the plaintiff is justified, and the burden of litigation costs is determined as per Disposition by applying Article 89 of the Civil Procedure Act, Article 508 (1) and (2) of the Civil Procedure Act to the approval of the suspension of compulsory execution and the declaration of provisional execution.

Judges Yellow Sea (Presiding Judge)