Legal effect of the direct payment agreement and whether or not to recognize the identity of the plaintiffs

It can be asserted as a direct payment agreement only for the subcontract price corresponding to the completed portion that is completed until then at the time of service of the attachment notification.

2015 Gohap54127 Right to Claim payment of deposit money

AA et al.

Republic of Korea and three others

on October 19, 2017

on October 16, 2015

1. Of the KRW 476,92,803 deposited by the △△ Institute on January 19, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 1431 on January 19, 2015

A. As to KRW 60,500,000, Plaintiff AA;

B. Plaintiff BB Design Co., Ltd for KRW 25,000,000;

C. On 11,100,000 won, PlaintiffCC Co., Ltd.;

D. Plaintiff D Co., Ltd. for KRW 17,500,000;

E. For KRW 10,200,000, Plaintiff EE Company;

It is confirmed that each deposit is the person entitled to claim the return of each deposit.

2. Plaintiff FF Co., Ltd., GG, H and II

Each claim against the Defendants is dismissed.

3. Of the litigation costs, the Plaintiff AA, BB Design, andCC.

The part arising between the Defendants, Co., Ltd., D, EE and the Defendants

The portion arising between Plaintiff FF Co., Ltd., GG, H, II and the Defendants is assessed against the said Plaintiffs.

Cheong-gu Office

As to KRW 476,92,80,00, which was deposited by the △△ Institute on January 19, 2015 by the Seoul Central District Court No. 2015, the Plaintiff FF Company for KRW 14,340,410, as to KRW 14,340,410, the Plaintiff FF Company for KRW 16,90,000, as to KRW 16,90,00, as to KRW 16,90,000, Plaintiff HA Co., Ltd. and KRW 81,10,000.

1. Basic facts

A. The relationship between the parties

The rest of the plaintiffs and the defendant KK Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as "KK"), except the plaintiff II, entered into a subcontract contract with the defendant J (hereinafter referred to as the "JJ") who is the contractor for the construction of the school foundation's meal room and the student restaurant (hereinafter referred to as "the construction of this case") after receiving a contract for the construction of the school foundation's school meal room and the student restaurant (hereinafter referred to as "GJ").

(b) Agreement on direct payment of subcontract consideration and completion of works;

1) Defendant J and Pacific Institute agreed to pay the subcontract price directly to the rest of the Plaintiffs and Defendant K, except Plaintiff II, as indicated in the attached Form 2 and the construction completion statement of subcontracting.

2) The rest of the Plaintiffs and Defendant KK, except Plaintiff II, completed each subcontracted work, such as the attached Table 2 and the attached Table of the completion of the construction work.

(c) Combined deposits of △△ Institute;

1) Defendant J, the contractor of the instant construction project, did not pay the remainder of KRW 467,615,129 out of the construction cost.

2) 피고 JJ의 위 공사대금에 대하여, ① 피고 JJ의 채권자 LL 주식회사(이하 'LL'이라 한다)가 63,602,129원에 대하여 2011. 1. 27. 대구지방법원 2011카합30호 채권가압류 결정을 받아 그 결정문이 2011. 2. 1. □□학원에 송달되었고, ② 피고 JJ의 채권자 MM이 7,200,000원에 대하여 2011. 5. 23. 의정부지방법원 동두천시법원 2011카단95호 채권가압류 결정을 받아 그 결정문이 2011. 5.26. □□학원에 송달되었고, ③ 피고 JJ의 채권자 주식회사 NN(이하 'NN'이라 한다)이 29,700,000원에 대하여 2011. 6. 13. 서울동부지방법원 2011카단3952호 채권가압류 결정을 받아 그 결정문이 2011. 6. 16. □□학원에 송달되었고, ④피고 대한민국 산하 역삼세무서장이 172,791,230원에 대하여 2011. 6. 10. 체납처분에 기한 채권압류통지를 하여 2011. 6. 17. □□학원에게 송달되었고, ⑤ 피고 JJ의 채권자 주식회사 OO(이하 'OO'이라 한다)이 86,600,000원에 대하여 2011.6. 17. 대구지방법원 영덕지원 2011카단171호 채권가압류 결정을 받아 그 결정문이 2011. 6. 20. □□학원에 송달되었고, ⑥ 피고 JJ의 채권자 주식회사 PP(이하 'PP'라 한다)가 8,293,000원에 대하여 2011. 7. 26. 서울남부지방법원 2011카단5488호 채권가압류 결정을 받아 그 결정문이 2011. 7. 29. □□학원에 송달되었고, ⑦ 피고 JJ의 채권이 주식회사 QQ(이하 'QQ'이라 한다)이 17,612,000원에 대하여 2011. 8. 2. 대구지방법원 포항지원 2011카단1378호 채권가압류결정을 받아 그 결정문이 2011. 8. 4. □□학원에 송달되었고, ⑧ PP가 8,436,440원에 대하여 2011. 9. 6. 서울남부지방법원 2011타채23104호 채권압류 및 추심명령을 받아 그 결정문이 2011. 9. 9. □□학원에 송달되었고, ⑨ 피고 대한민국 산하 역삼세무서장이 236,017,850원에 대하여 2011. 9. 9. 체납처분에 기한 채권압류통지를 하여 2011. 9. 16. □□학원에 송달되었고, ⑩ 피고 JJ의 채권자 RR이 7,772,600원에 대하여 2011. 11. 7. 서울중앙지방법원 2011카단62696호 채권가압류 결정을 받아 그 결정문이 2011. 11. 11. □□학원에 송달되었다.

3) On January 19, 2015, △ Institute made a mixed deposit of KRW 476,92,803 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Plaintiffs and the Defendants, other than Plaintiff II, as the reason for deposit of the foregoing concurrent payment agreement, including provisional seizure of claims, subcontract consideration payment agreement, national tax seizure, provisional seizure, seizure of claims, etc.

D. Assignment of Defendant KK’s claim for payment of deposit money to Plaintiff II

On June 26, 2015, Defendant KK transferred the right to claim the payment of the deposit amount of KRW 81,100,000 of the subcontract price among the right to claim the payment of the deposit of KRW 476,92,803 which Defendant K K deposited with the Seoul Central District Court No. 1431 on January 19, 2015, and on the same day, Defendant K transferred the right to claim the payment of the deposit amount of KRW 81,100,000 to Defendant K by content-certified mail.

[Reasons for Recognition] The facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 16, 26, 27 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the whole pleadings (in the case of defendant JJ, defendant K, and defendant SS, a confession made by a non-appearance on the date for pleading)

2. Determination as to whether the plaintiffs' right to claim payment of deposit money exists

A. The parties' assertion

1) The plaintiffs' assertion

A) On June 10, 201, the rest of the Plaintiffs and Defendant KK, other than Plaintiff II, agreed on the direct payment of subcontract price pursuant to Article 35 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry with Defendant JJ and △ Institute, as indicated in the attached direct payment agreement and the detailed statement on the completion of subcontracted construction works. Defendant K transferred KRW 81,100,000 of the subcontract price subject to the said direct payment agreement to Plaintiff II on June 26, 2015.

B) According to the above direct payment agreement, the obligation to pay the construction cost to Defendant LLI, the contractor, and the obligation to pay the subcontract price to the Plaintiffs and Defendant KK except Plaintiff II, the subcontractor of Defendant J, has expired on June 10, 201, which is the date of the direct payment agreement. As such, the attachment of the obligation based on the disposition on default against Defendant J’s obligation against Defendant J on June 11, 201, is invalid since it was served on June 17, 201, after the date of the direct payment agreement.

C) Even if Defendant Republic of Korea could not oppose the Plaintiffs’ direct payment agreement regarding the seizure of claims based on the disposition on default against KRW 172,791,230, out of the amount of the construction deposit against Defendant J’s payment of KRW 172,79,230 on June 11, 2011, the amount of the above seizure of Defendant Republic’s Republic of Korea’s Republic of Korea paid KRW 172,628,690 as the deposit money deposited by Defendant Luart Public Order 806, Daegu District Court 201, and only KRW 162,540 as the deposit money was repaid to Defendant Luart Public Order 172,628,690 on June 1

2) Defendant Republic of Korea’s assertion

A) The scope of the Plaintiffs’ right to claim direct payment, which may be asserted against Defendant Republic of Korea pursuant to the instant subcontract price payment agreement, is limited to the amount already completed until June 17, 201, which is the date of the notification of seizure of the Defendant Republic of Korea. However, there is no assertion or proof as to the portion completed by the Plaintiffs up to that point, and the Plaintiffs cannot oppose the Defendant Republic of Korea upon the direct payment agreement.

B) On June 11, 2011, Defendant J’s claim for the payment of KRW 172,791,230, out of the claim for the payment of the construction work against Defendant J’s △ Institute, was seized based on the disposition on default (hereinafter “Attachment 1”). On September 9, 2011, Defendant Republic of Korea attached the claim for KRW 236,017,850 (hereinafter “Attachment 2”). Defendant Republic of Korea’s claim for the payment of KRW 172,628,690, the payment of KRW 172,628,690, out of the amount of the provisional attachment and the amount of the provisional attachment in accordance with the legal principles on the appropriation of claims under the Civil Act and the regulations on the collection of national taxes under the provision on the disposition on the payment of claims under the National Tax Act, and the amount of the provisional attachment cannot be directly asserted against Defendant Republic of Korea’s payment limit.

C. Determination

1) Relevant legal principles

In a case where the contractor, the original contractor, and the subcontractor agree that the subcontractor shall pay the price for the construction work directly to the subcontractor in the presence of the original contractor, and that the subcontractor shall not pay the original contractor the price to the subcontractor within the scope of the actual execution or completion of the construction work by the subcontract, the subcontractor shall pay the subcontractor the price for the construction work in person to the extent that the subcontractor actually executes or completes the construction work under the subcontract, and that the subcontractor shall not pay the price for the construction work to the original contractor, the issue of whether the subcontractor may set up against the execution creditor of the subcontractor within the scope of the subcontract price corresponding to the portion of the execution of the subcontractor, depending on whether the notification of seizure order was actually executed or completed before the subcontractor reaches the original contractor, or the extent of its expiration, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da54108, Feb. 29,

Since there is no provision excluding the effect of compulsory execution or preservation execution conducted before the cause for direct payment of the subcontract price occurred under the Subcontract Act (hereinafter referred to as the “subcontract”), where a third-party creditor of the principal contractor becomes liable for the payment of the principal contractor’s claims against the ordering person by seizure, provisional seizure, etc. before the cause for direct payment of the subcontract price occurs, the claims preserved after such cause for direct payment shall not be extinguished notwithstanding the cause for direct payment of the subcontract price which occurred thereafter. In particular, in the relationship between the occurrence of a subcontractor’s right to demand direct payment and the transfer of the principal contractor’s claims to the principal contractor and the extinction of the obligation to pay to the principal contractor by the ordering person, one of them does not take other legal effect unless any one takes place, and thus, the ordering person bears the obligation to pay the contract price to a third party by direct request of the subcontractor, and thus, it may be said that there is concern that the said obligation might be an unconfisible burden on the ordering person to the extent of 10th of the principal contractor’s claims satisfied with the principal contractor’s own principal contractor’s claims and thus it becomes more satisfactory than one of the said obligation.

2) Whether the plaintiffs can oppose the defendant Republic of Korea by the direct payment agreement of the subcontract price

On June 10, 201, the rest of the plaintiffs except for plaintiff II and the defendant KK agreed on the direct payment of the subcontract price with the defendant JJ and △ Institute on June 10, 201; on June 26, 2015, the defendant KK transferred KRW 81,10,000 to the plaintiff II who was directly paid the subcontract price; on June 10, 201, it notified the defendant Republic of Korea by content-certified mail; on June 10, 201, the defendant Republic of Korea issued a seizure order on KRW 172,628,690 of the contract price claim against the defendant JJ's JJ on June 17, 201, and delivered the written decision to the △ Institute on June 17, 201. On the other hand, if the purport of the argument stated in the evidence Nos. 8 through 16 of the Framework Act on the Construction Industry is added, the remaining plaintiffs, the defendant △△△ and the defendant J and the defendant 2101.

Therefore, in light of the above legal principles, the plaintiffs can oppose the payment agreement of the subcontract price only for the subcontract price corresponding to the completed portion as of June 17, 201, which was delivered a notice of attachment 1 to the defendant Republic of Korea to the defendant Republic of Korea as of June 17, 201, and there is no assertion or proof of the plaintiffs regarding the subcontract price for the completed portion by June 17, 201. Thus, the plaintiffs cannot oppose the defendant Republic of Korea as the direct payment agreement of the subcontract price in this case. The defendant's assertion has merit.

3) The amount of seizure of Defendant Republic of Korea’s claims that the Plaintiffs could not oppose

If Gap evidence Nos. 28 (including each number), and each statement added the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant J may recognize the fact that the defendant J deposited the money of KRW 172,628,690 (hereinafter referred to as "port support deposit") from 806 to 172,628,690 (hereinafter referred to as "port support deposit") on April 4, 2013 to repay the national tax to the defendant J of the Republic of Korea. However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence Nos. 26, 26, 1, 4, 5, and 6 added the purport of the entire pleadings in addition to the statement of evidence Nos. 26, 1, 4, 5, and 6, the amount remaining after the partial appropriation of the above port support deposit out of the amount seized by the defendant Republic of Korea is 143,00,100, and the plaintiffs cannot oppose the defendant Republic of Korea within the said limit

① On June 11, 2011, the Republic of Korea attached KRW 172,791,230 out of the claim for the construction cost against Defendant J’s △ Institute. On September 9, 2011, the Republic of Korea seized KRW 236,017,850 by adding the additional arrears to the delinquent tax amount on which the ground of the attachment 1 was based. The details are as follows.

② Article 81(4) of the National Tax Collection Act provides that when the money received from a delinquent taxpayer or a third debtor is less than the total amount of delinquent amount due to the seizure of claims, securities, intangible property rights, etc., the distribution order and the amount to be distributed pursuant to the Civil Act and other statutes shall be set and allocated. Defendant J shall not exceed KRW 172,628,690 deposited by the Daegu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court on April 4, 2013 as the gold No. 806 in 2012, the total amount of national taxes in arrears held by Defendant JJ is less than KRW 236,017,850.

(3) Details of the provisions concerning the collection of national taxes and the transaction of national taxes shall be as follows:

④ In light of the above provisions of the National Tax Collection Act and Article 477 subparag. 2 of the Civil Act regarding appropriation of the obligation under Article 477 of the Civil Act, the amount of delinquent local taxes, the number of delinquent local taxes, the additional amount of which is less than the number of delinquent local taxes, ultimately, shall be appropriated first to the national tax obligor.

4) The scope of the plaintiffs' right to claim payment of deposit money

On June 10, 201, the rest of the plaintiffs, excluding the plaintiff II, and the defendant K 2, excluding the defendant K 1, and the defendant K 2, as stated in the attached direct payment agreement and the schedule of completion of the construction work, and on June 26, 201, the defendant K 2 transferred 81,10,000 won to the plaintiff II on June 26, 201, and notified the defendant K 1, 63,602,129 won by content-proof mail, the defendant JJ's creditors' LL 1, 60, 201, 106, 106, 206, 106, 206, 106, 206, 30, 106, 201, 206, 206, 206, 30, 201, 16, 201, 25, 201, 206, 3, 16,

가) 원고 ▲▲씨 주식회사(이하 '원고 ▲▲'이라 한다)

갑 제19, 26호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 원고 ▲▲은 2011. 6. 19. 이 사건 공사 중 외부베이스판넬 설치공사를 완료한 사실, 원고 ▲▲이 공사를 완료한 2011. 6. 19. 기준으로 원고 ▲▲이 하도급대금 직접지급합의로 대항할 수 없는 채권가압류 및 압류는 ① LL의 63,602,129원, ② MM의 7,200,000원, ③ NN의 29,700,000원, ④ 피고 대한민국의 143,000,100원의 합계 243,502,229원인 사실이 인정된다. 그렇다면, 원고 ▲▲은 피고 JJ의 □□학원에 대한 공사대금채권 476,992,803원에서 위 243,502,229원을 뺀 233,490,574원의 범위 내에서 이 사건 하도급대금 직접지급 합의의 효력을 주장할 수 있는데, 하도급법 제14조 제1항 제1호, 제3호, 제4호에 따라 발주자에게 하도급대금의 직접 지급을 요청한 수급사업자들이 여러 명인 경우 그들 사이의 우열관계는 직접지급 요청 도달일시의 선후에 따라 우열관계를 정하는 것이 상당하고(대법원 2012. 5. 10. 선고 2010다24176판결 등 참조), 하도급법 제14조 제1항 제2호가 하도급대금 직불합의를 한 수급사업자들이 여러 명인 경우 직접지급요청이 필요하지 않다고 규정하고 있는 점을 고려할 때 해당 공사의 완료일시의 선후에 따라 우열관계를 정할 수밖에 없으므로, 원고 ▲▲이 이 사건 외부베이스판넬 설치공사를 완료한 2011. 6. 19. 위 잔존 공사대금채권 243,502,229원 중 원고 ▲▲의 피고 JJ에 대한 하도급대금에 해당하는 금액 11,100,000원이 원고 ▲▲에게 이전되었다 할 것이다. 원고 ▲▲의 주장은 이유 있다.

B) Plaintiff AA, D and EE Co., Ltd.

갑 제17, 20, 22, 26호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 원고 주식회사 AA(이하 '원고 AA'라 한다)는 2011. 6. 30.에 이 사건 공사 중 조적, 방수, 미장, 타일공사 등을 완료한 사실, 원고 주식회사 DD(이하 '원고 DD'이라 한다)은 2011. 7. 20. 이 사건 공사 중 폴리카보네이트 공사를 완료한 사실, 원고 EE 주식회사(이하 '원고 EE'라 한다)는 2011. 7. 10. 이 사건 공사 중 유리공사를 완료한 사실, 원고 세림, DD, EE가 모두 이 공사를 완료한 2011. 7. 20. 기준으로 원고 세림, DD, EE가 하도급대금 직접지급합의로 대항할 수 없는 채권가압류 및 압류는 ① LL의 63,602,129원, ② MM의 7,200,000원, ③ NN의 29,700,000원, ④ 피고 대한민국의 143,000,100원, ⑤ OO의 86,600,000원의 합계 330,102,229원인 사실이 인정되고, 원고 ▲▲에게 2011. 6. 19. 이 사건 공사대금채권 중 11,100,000원이 하도급대금 직불합의에 따라 이전된 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 그렇다면, 원고 AA, EE, DD은 피고 JJ의 □□학원에 대한 공사대금채권 476,992,803원에서 위 341,202,229원(= 330,102,229원 + 11,100,000원)을 뺀 135,790,574원의 범위 내에서 이 사건 하도급대금 직접지급 합의의 효력을 주장할 수 있는데, 앞서 본 바와 같이 하도급대금 직불합의를 한 수급사업자들이 여러명인 경우 해당 공사의 완료일시의 선후에 따라 우열관계를 정할 수밖에 없으므로, 결국 위 135,790,574원 중 원고 AA에게 2011. 6. 30. 60,500,000원이, 원고 EE에게 2011. 7. 10. 10,200,000원이, 원고 DD에게 2011. 7. 20. 17,500,000원이 각 이전되었다고 할 것이다. 원고 AA, DD, EE의 주장은 이유 있다.

C) Plaintiff BB Design Corporation

갑 제18, 26호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 원고 BB디자인 주식회사(이하 '원고 BB디자인'이라 한다)는 2011. 7. 30. 이 사건 공사 중 목공사 및 수장공사를 완료한 사실, 원고 BB디자인이 이 공사를 완료한 2011. 7. 30. 기준으로 원고 세림, DD, EE가 하도급대금 직접지급합의로 대항할 수 없는 채권가압류 및 압류는 ① LL의 63,602,129원, ② MM의 7,200,000원, ③ NN의 29,700,000원, ④ 피고 대한민국의 143,000,100원, ⑤ OO의 86,600,000원, ⑥ PP의 8,293,000원의 합계 338,395,229원인 사실이 인정되고, 이 사건 공사대금채권 중 원고 ▲▲에게 2011. 6. 19. 11,100,000원이, 원고 AA에게 2011. 6. 30. 60,500,000원이, 원고 EE에게 2011. 7. 10. 10,200,000원이, 원고 DD에게 2011. 7. 20. 17,500,000원이 하도급대금 직불합의에 따라 각 이전된 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 그렇다면, 원고 BB디자인은 피고 JJ의 □□학원에 대한 공사대금채권 476,992,803원에서 437,695,229원(= 338,395,229원 + 11,100,000원 + 60,500,000원 + 10,200,000원 + 17,500,000원)을 뺀 39,297,574원의 범위 내에서 이 사건 하도급대금 직접지급 합의의 효력을 주장할 수 있는데, 앞서 본 바와 같이 하도급대금 직불합의를 한 수급사업자들이 여러 명인 경우 해당 공사의 완료일시의 선후에 따라 우열관계를 정할 수밖에 없으므로, 결국 원고 BB디자인에게 2011. 7. 30. 위 공사대금 중 25,000,000원이 하도급대금 직불합의에 따라 이전되었다. 원고 BB디자인의 주장은 이유 있다.

D) Plaintiff FF Co., Ltd., GG, H, and II

갑 제21, 23, 24, 25, 26호증의 각 기재에 변론 전체의 취지를 더하면, 원고 ■■ 엘리베이터 주식회사(이하 '원고 ■■'이라 한다)는 2011. 8. 18.에 이 사건 공사 중 승강기 설치공사를 완료한 사실, 원고 주식회사 GG(이하 '원고 GG'이라 한다)은 2011. 8. 31. 이 사건 공사 중 레미콘 공사를 완료한 사실, 원고 주식회사 HH(이하 '원고 HH'라 한다)는 2011. 8. 10. 이 사건 공사 중 석공사를 완료한사실, 피고 KK은 2011. 8. 15. 이 사건 공사 중 금속, 창호 공사를 완료한 사실, 원고 ■■, GG, HH, 피고 KK이 모두 이 공사를 완료한 2011. 8. 31. 기준으로 원고 ■■, GG, HH, 피고 KK이 하도급대금 직접지급합의로 대항할 수 없는 채권가압류 및 압류는 ① LL의 63,602,129원, ② MM의 7,200,000원, ③ NN의 29,700,000원, ④ 피고 대한민국의 143,000,100원, ⑤ OO의 86,600,000원, ⑥ PP의 8,293,000원, ⑦ QQ의 17,612,000원의 합계 356,007,229원인 사실이 인정되고, 피고 KK이 2015. 6. 26. 원고 II에게 자신이 직접 지급받기로 한 하도급대금 중 81,100,000원에 해당하는 공탁금출급청구권을 양도하고, 이를 피고 대한민국에게 내용증명 우편으로 통지한 사실, 이 사건 공사대금채권 중 원고 ▲▲에게 2011. 6. 19. 11,100,000원이, 원고 AA에게 2011. 6. 30. 60,500,000원이, 원고 EE에게 2011. 7. 10. 10,200,000원이, 원고 DD에게 2011. 7. 20. 17,500,000원이, 원고 BB디자인에게 2011. 7. 30. 25,000,000원이 하도급대금 직불합의에 따라 각 이전된 사실은 앞서 본 바와 같다. 그렇다면, 원고 ■■, GG, HH, II이 하도급대금 직불합의로 대항하지 못하는 채권가압류 및 압류 합계 356,007,229원과 원고 ▲▲, AA, EE, DD, BB디자인에게 이미 이전된 하도급대금의 합계 124,300,000원의 합계액은 480,307,229원으로, 피고 JJ의 □□학원에 대한 공사대금채권 476,992,803원을 초과하므로, 원고 ■■, GG, HH, II이 하도급대금 직불합의의 효력을 주장할 수 있는 금액은 남아있지 않다. 원고 ■■, GG, HH, II의 주장은 이유 없다.

5) Benefits of confirmation

The plaintiffs have the right to claim the payment of deposit within the scope of recognition as above. Unless the defendants agreed to the payment of deposit, the plaintiffs have a benefit to seek confirmation of their status as the right to claim the payment of deposit in order to pay the deposit.

3. Conclusion

The respective claims against the Defendants of the Plaintiff Company AA, BB Design Co., Ltd.,CC Co., Ltd., DD and EE Co., Ltd. are accepted on the grounds of their reasoning, and each claims against the Defendants of the Plaintiff FF Co., Ltd., GG, HH and II are dismissed on the grounds of their ground (with respect to Defendant JJ, Defendant KK, and Defendant SS, the scope of the right to claim payment of deposit is subject to legal evaluation, and it is not subject to the principle of confession, and thus, it is so decided as to the Defendant Republic of Korea