No creditor may exercise the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods, even if the creditor is not designated as the person to be deposited.

Even if a creditor is a creditor, the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods cannot be exercised unless it is designated as the person to whom the deposited goods are deposited. Therefore, even if a third party, other than the person to whom the deposited goods are deposited, has received a confirmation judgment on the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against the person to whom the deposited goods are deposited, a

The contents of the decision shall be the same as attached.

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Of the deposit money stated in attached Form 1, it is confirmed that the claim for payment of KRW 54,283,550 for the obstacles stated in attached Form 2 was made to the plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

(a) Acceptance ruling;

For the construction of the multifunctional administrative city, the Korea Land Corporation is designated as a prearranged area pursuant to Article 13 (1) of the Special Act on the Construction of the Multifunctional Administrative City in Yeongi-Gongju Area for Follow-up Large Scale of New Administrative Capital.

Since then, according to the death of the Minister of Construction and Transportation on May 24, 2005, the Korea Land Corporation consulted with the owner for the transfer of ownership on the ○○○-1 ground obstacles, ○○○○-1, located in the project district, and did not reach an agreement.

On the other hand, the Central Land Tribunal, on November 22, 2007, rendered a ruling that the Korea Land Corporation, a project implementer, shall move the above obstacles to the above public works and the compensation for the losses shall be KRW 1,843,358,360.

(b) Payment and deposit of compensation by the Korea Land Corporation;

The Korea Land Corporation paid 1,121,967,210 out of 1,843,358,360 won of compensation in accordance with the above ruling to the defendant Cho ○, who acquired ownership in the auction procedure for the building, machinery, etc.

On the other hand, with respect to 721,391,150 won of compensation for some obstacles, including obstacles listed in the separate sheet No. 2 (hereinafter referred to as the “in this case”), the Korea Land Corporation deposited the deposited person with the Defendant ○○○○ Food Co., Ltd. as the deposited person pursuant to Article 40(2)2 and 4 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, on the ground that on January 9, 2008, the Daejeon District Court of Daejeon refused to receive compensation, and it is unclear whether the assignment of claims is legitimate or not, and the seizure of claims is concurrent, and the legal relationship is different depending on whether it conforms to the building and machinery at the auction, and thus the claimed person cannot be known.

[Ground of recognition] The entry of Gap evidence 3-1, 2, and Gap evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

Around December 2004, the Plaintiff newly constructed the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the instant branch of the ○○○○-1, Chungcheong-gun, Chungcheongnam-do, ○○○-1. The instant branch of the branch is owned by the Plaintiff.

Meanwhile, in the Daejeon District Court Decision 2007Ma8259, the defendant Cho Jae-chul was awarded a successful bid for the land, building, machinery, etc. owned by the defendant ○○○ Green Food Co., Ltd., but the land of this case is not the object of auction in the above auction case.

Therefore, among the 721,391,150 won deposited by the Korea Land Corporation, the right to claim for withdrawal of KRW 54,283,550 deposited as compensation for the obstacles in this case is against the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

The right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods is determined formally by the statement of the deposit. As such, even if a creditor under substantive law is a creditor of the deposit, the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods may not be exercised unless it is designated as the person to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods. Therefore, even if a third party, other than the person to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods, has received a judgment confirming the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against the person to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods, the third party who received the judgment cannot directly claim the withdrawal of deposited goods (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da3391, May 31, 200

Meanwhile, according to the above facts, the deposit of this case has the nature of execution deposit under Article 248 of the Civil Execution Act. On the other hand, according to the validity of the assignment of claim and compliance with the obstacles, it is reasonable to see that the above Defendants have the nature of deposit of relative non-fluences with the above Defendants as the principal deposit.

However, the fact that the Korea Land Corporation deposited compensation for the obstacles, etc. of this case by having Defendant ○○○○ Green Food Co., Ltd., ○○○○○○, ○○ iron, and ○○ Engineering Co., Ltd., as seen earlier, and the Plaintiff is not the person to whom the deposit of this case was made. Thus, there is no dispute that the Plaintiff is not the person to whom the deposit of this case was deposited. Thus, the Plaintiff did not assert the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case on the ground that the obstacles of this case are the persons to whom the deposit of this case was deposited or their successors, but asserts that the right to claim the payment

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed for reasons.