1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. Defendant C Co., Ltd, D, E, F, G, H, and I are Defendants B.

Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant B”) asserts that there is no benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to advance deposit against Defendant B, since the dispute over the right to advance payment of deposit arises between the parties to the dispute over the right to advance payment of deposit.

According to the evidence evidence evidence No. 1, as to the claim for construction price of KRW 49,70,000 against Defendant B by J Co., Ltd., Defendant B, Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), provisional attachment decision of the provisional attachment of Nonparty C, E, F, G, H, and I as the creditor, seizure and collection decision of the provisional attachment of the Plaintiff as the creditor, and notification of the transfer of the claim to the transferee of the Plaintiff as the cause of deposit, respectively, to the Plaintiff, Defendant C, D, E, F, H, I, H, I, and Nonparty C as the Plaintiff, and the deposited person as the cause of deposit.

Where the content of a deposit in which the person entitled to claim for withdrawal is unclear, a person who intends to pay the deposit as the principal of the deposited money may request the withdrawal of the deposit in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Deposit Act and Article 33 subparag. 2 of the Deposit Rule, where there is no dispute between the principal of the deposited money and the depositee with respect to the attribution of rights, the written consent or the written agreement between the principal of the deposited money and the principal of the deposited money, and where there is a dispute as to the attribution of rights between the principal and the deposited money, the principal of the judgment confirming the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money against all the other deposited persons (including the conciliation protocol and the settlement protocol), and the judgment confirming the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited money against the principal of the deposited money cannot be deemed to be “written document certifying the existence of the right to claim the withdrawal.”

In other words, the consent of Defendant C, D, E, F, G, H, I and Nonparty K, who is another depositary, is against them.