If a person who received a deposit notice as the consignee of deposited goods receives the deposit money, the deposit will be received according to the purpose of the deposit and legal effect will occur.

Since the Plaintiff refused to receive KRW 6,117,750 as the remainder of the construction price in the instant case, if the Defendant deposited the payment by designating the Defendant as the repayment of the construction cost and the Plaintiff received the said deposit without any objection, it shall be deemed that the said deposit was received by the purport of the deposit. Therefore, it shall be deemed that the payment was appropriated for the principal of the construction price in the instant case equivalent to the amount received of the said deposit.

Article 487 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 79Da1336 delivered on November 13, 1979

Kim Jae-sik et al.

School Foundation White Private Teaching Institutes and two others

Jinju Branch of Busan District Court (76Gahap169)

Of the original judgment, the part of the original judgment on the plaintiff Jung Dong-ju shall be modified.

The defendants jointly and severally pay to the above plaintiff the amount of 99,134 won with the rate of 5 percent per annum from March 1, 1974 to the date of full payment, and the amount of 9,117,750 won with the rate of 25 percent per annum from March 1, 1974 to December 28, 1974.

The remaining claims of the plaintiff as well as the defendant's appeal against the plaintiff Kim Jae-sik are all dismissed.

The costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff Kim Jae-sik and the defendants shall be borne by the defendants, and the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff Jeong-dong and the defendants shall be borne by the defendants, and the costs of appeal arising between the plaintiff Jeong-dong and the defendants shall be borne by the plaintiff Jeong-dong and the plaintiff Jung-dong and four of them shall be borne by the plaintiff Jung-dong and the others

The Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff Kim Jae-sik money at the rate of 3,917,50 won with an annual rate of 6% from September 6, 1973 to the date of full payment, and the Defendants jointly pay to the Plaintiff Jeong-dong 7,65,470 won with an annual rate of 3,00,000 won from March 1, 1974; and with an annual rate of 25% from May 13, 1976 to each full rate of 4,65,470 won.

Costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendants, and a judgment of provisional execution

The original judgment shall be revoked.

All of the plaintiffs' impulses are dismissed.

The use of litigation ices in both the first and second instances is borne by the plaintiffs.

In light of the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2-2, 3, and testimony of Sung-dong witness at the court below's 1970.3.18 and the defendants agreed to pay 90,000 won to the non-party 1's 3-5-1's 9-1's 9-2's 9-1's 9-2's 9-2's 97-2's 9-1's 97-2's 9-2's 97-2's 97-2's 9-2's 197-2's 9-2's 197-2's 9-2's 197-2's 9-1's 197-2's 1973-1's 1973-2's 17-2's 197-2's 17-1's 97-2's 1's 97-2's 3-2's 1'2'2'

Therefore, as of August 30, 1973, the above non-party company against the defendants has the claim of KRW 9,117,750 in the amount of the fourth construction payment, the claim of KRW 3 million in the above additional construction payment, and the claim of KRW 3,917,50 in the above promissory note payment.

Therefore, with respect to the above additional construction cost as claimed by the plaintiff Jung Dong-ju and the above promissory note amount of KRW 3,917,500 claimed by the plaintiff Kim Jae-chul, the defendant's private teaching institute shall obtain permission from the competent supervisory authority as prescribed by the Private School Act, but without obtaining such permission, the above additional construction cost as claimed by the plaintiff Jong Dong-dong owner, and the remaining defendants guaranteed the above obligations. Thus, each of the above obligations owed by the defendants is in violation of Article 28 of the Private School Act and becomes invalid, and the above obligations are in violation of Article 28 of the Private School Act. However, the above obligations owed by the defendants under Article 28 of the above Act are not the purport of including the counter-performance of obligations arising from bilateral contracts, such as the contract in this case. Thus,

The defendants also claim that the above non-party company paid the above amount of the 4th construction work. Thus, according to the above statement No. 5-11 and No. 6-1, and the above witness testimony, the defendants are entitled to pay 3 million won as part of the above 4th construction work amount to the non-party company on December 28, 1974 and the defendant private teaching institute deposited 6,17,750 won as the remaining 4th construction work amount to the non-party company, and the above non-party company received the above amount of the 4th 5th 4th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 6th 1976, and the above non-party company was entitled to receive the above amount without any objection, so the above amount of the 4th 4th 6th 6th 15th 17th 1977th 1977.

In addition, even if the Defendants are liable for additional construction charges and agreed damages as stated in the above list against the Plaintiff Jungdong-ju, the above school building completed by the above non-party company has the same defects as stated in the attached list 1 through 7, so the above Plaintiff's right to claim damages in lieu of the damages and the above Plaintiff's additional construction charges should be offset against the above Plaintiff's claims. Thus, in full view of the statement of Eul No. 4, which can be recognized as authentic by the testimony of the court below and the party witness, and the witness's testimony, on the witness's testimony, on-site inspection at the court below and the party court, and the whole purport of oral argument, the building completed by the above non-party company as stated in the attached list 1 through 6, the above construction charges as stated in the above and the expenses required for the repair of the defect are 90,000,866 won in total, and the above non-party company is obligated to offset the above damages claims against the Defendants by the above 10-year period, as alleged in the above 10-year period.

Therefore, the plaintiff Kim Jae-sik's claim against the defendants = 9,134 won of the remainder of the additional construction work and the amount of damages for delay in civil law at the rate of 5% per annum from March 1, 1974 to the date following the payment date of the above additional construction work, and damages for delay in civil law from March 1, 1974 to December 28 of the same year, 1974 to the amount of 9,117,750 won of the agreed damages for delay received as above, and the amount of 6,117,750 won from March 1, 1974 to December 28 of the same year, and the amount of 6,117,750 won from December 29, 1974 to May 12, 1976, shall be accepted and the remainder shall be dismissed, and since the original judgment is just with the purport of the plaintiff Kim Jae-sik, the defendant's appeal against the above plaintiff shall be dismissed as the judgment of Article 98 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Choi Jae-ho (Presiding Judge)