1. C’s deposit with the Seoul Central District Court No. 15712 on June 19, 2019 5,82,480 won.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff is an individual business operator who provides job placement services under the trade name of "D", and the defendant is a corporation that provides job placement services for construction personnel.

The plaintiff and the defendant supplied daily workers to the subcontractor at the construction site of the subcontractor company and lent daily allowances to the subcontractor company (hereinafter referred to as the "payment") to pay daily allowances to the daily workers, and then have settled the payment of substitute payment and introduction fees from the construction company that the subcontractor company received from the construction company at the end of each month.

B. The Plaintiff supplied part-time workers for the field dismantling of the Ework and the F Zone Urban Development Project, etc. subcontracted by C, and for the adjustment of materials.

C. The Plaintiff paid a substitute payment to C through employees G. Since G was partially useful, G introduced H to C around November 2018, and it notified C that the advance payment transferred in the name of G would be deposited in the name of H until it introduced H to the Plaintiff’s employee.

From November 6, 2018 to December 22, 2018, the sum of KRW 66,019,000 paid by subrogation to C in the name of H, and KRW 106,709,000 in total paid by subrogation to I who are employees of C, respectively.

C On June 19, 2019, the Seoul Central District Court deposited KRW 5,822,480 as the deposited person, either the plaintiff or the defendant and deposited the creditor's non-creditor.

The Plaintiff asserts that “the cause of the deposit” was that the depositor (C) directly signed the certificate of work for daily occupation D, and received the payment of the payment of the payment from G and H given the direction of the Plaintiff. The Defendant asserts that H should return the payment of the payment by subrogation to the Defendant due to H’s employee, and that H should return the payment by subrogation to the Defendant. Therefore, the depositor (C) who is obliged to return the payment by subrogation to the Defendant cannot be identified even if the fiduciary duty was fulfilled.