In case where a person who has received an order of seizure and issuance of a whole order for the right to claim the deposited goods claims the deposited goods, whether it is necessary to attach a document under Article 32 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit

In accordance with Article 489 of the Civil Code, if the deposit obligee does not accept the deposit in accordance with subparagraph 2 of Article 32 of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs, it shall be accompanied by a document evidencing that the creditor's written statement or deposit has no final and conclusive judgment that the deposit is valid, even if the person who has received an order of seizure and all orders for the right to claim the deposit.

Re-appellant

Seoul Central District Court Order 72Ma1537 Dated March 16, 1973

The reappeal is dismissed.

The summary of the grounds for re-appeal is that when a creditor who received an order of seizure and assignment of the right to claim for the collection of deposited goods claims claims for the collection of deposited goods, the original decision, based on the above order of seizure and assignment, was not required to attach the document under Article 32 (2) of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs, but the original decision, based on the premise that the above written attachment is necessary, is committed in violation of the law regarding the collection of deposited goods.

The right to claim the deposited goods and the right to claim the deposited goods can not be claimed beyond the status of the debtor of the attachment and assignment order, which is the original right to claim the deposited goods, and the deposited goods can be recovered pursuant to Article 489 of the Civil Code, because the creditor approves the deposited goods, notifies the deposit office to receive the deposited goods, or is made before the judgment becomes final and conclusive, the deposited goods claim shall be accompanied by a document proving that the creditor does not accept the deposited goods pursuant to Article 32 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs.

The issue is that, in fact, it should be interpreted that the attachment of the above documents is not necessary because those who are ordered to attach the above documents are almost able to attach them. However, as seen above, even if all creditors are subject to seizure and all of them, they cannot recover the deposited goods beyond their original status as the right holder to claim the deposited goods. Thus, this is a view without legitimate grounds.

Therefore, the original decision that the above attachment of the documents is not erroneous in the disposition of the public official who did not accept it is legitimate, and there is no illegality as pointed out in the arguments. Accordingly, the reappeal is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Cho Young-young (Presiding Justice)