Whether the secured party with respect to the deposit for provisional disposition may seek the cancellation of the security against the secured party by opposing the secured party, after receiving the entire seizure right of the secured party's claim for recovery of the deposit under the separate title of debt against the secured party.

If the secured party against the deposit for provisional disposition receives the entire claim for the recovery of the deposit which the secured party provided for the secured party under a separate title of debt against the secured party, the secured party may file an application for the cancellation of the security against himself by opposing the secured party in order to collect it as the specific successor to the claim for recovery of the deposit which the secured party provided for the secured party. In this case, the court should allow the application for cancellation by deeming that the secured party voluntarily renounced the security interest.

Article 115 of the Civil Procedure Act

Park Jin-sat

Shee and 1 other

For the purpose of Captain:

Daejeon District Court Order 93 Canadian1267 dated August 18, 1993

1. Cancellation of the original decision;

2. The case is remanded to Daejeon District Court civil collegiate Panel Division.

The original decision shall be revoked.

The security of KRW 2,00,000 deposited by the applicant with the Daejeon District Court 87Ka6374 on December 4, 1987 as to a provisional disposition that was prohibited from disposing of real estate has ceased to exist, and such security has ceased to exist.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 26, 1987, the applicant deposited 2,000,000 won in the above court (12.4 December 4, 1987, 87, with the respondent as the other party, in filing an application for provisional injunction on disposal of real estate with respect to 2,122 m2, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Court of Daejeon, Seo-gu, Daejeon District Court of 87Ka6374, Seo-gu, Daejeon, Daejeon District Court of 688-4, to ensure that the respondent would suffer from such provisional injunction.

B. The applicant filed a lawsuit on the merits in the above court, which became final and conclusive as against the applicant at the end of the proceedings in Seoul High Court Decision 88Da2865, 4618, 4847, 89Na24754, 24761, 24778, and Supreme Court Decision 91Da19012, 19029, 19036 (the first instance court: the applicant, the second instance: the respondent, the second instance court: the respondent, the third instance court: the dismissal of appeal - the dismissal of appeal - the dismissal of appeal ).

C. Accordingly, the respondent filed an application with the Daejeon District Court 92Ka181 and confirmed that the cost of reimbursement was KRW 911,214.

D. On August 19, 1982, the respondent filed an assignment order of claims with the Daejeon District Court 92tagi151,1512, KRW 923,814, the sum of the amount of claims under the above final and conclusive decision and the expenses for its execution, with the obligor and the third obligor, and the applicant filed an assignment order of claims against the State. The respondent was completely subject to the attachment order of claims equivalent to the above KRW 923,814, out of the claim for recovery of the deposit under Paragraph (a) of the above Article.

(Recognized Data): a single record.

2. Determination:

A. According to the above facts, the respondent, who is the appellant, succeeded to the right of claim for the recovery of deposit against the State in full by receiving the right of claim for the recovery of deposit against the State, and such specific successor may apply for the cancellation of the security by subrogation of the applicant in order to hold the right of claim for the recovery of deposit. If a specific successor concurrently holds the position of the secured party, as in this case, if the specific successor concurrently holds the position of the secured party, he/she shall be deemed to waive the right of claim for the cancellation by himself/herself.

B. However, there is some doubt about the fact that the applicant for the cancellation of the security has filed an application for the cancellation with his/her own as the other party. However, in case where the person who has offered the security gives up his/her right to the deposited public official, he/she shall obtain a decision of cancellation of the security from the court and attach the same decision to the case where the person who has offered the security gives up his/her right to the deposited public official. In such case, there may be cases where the applicant for the cancellation of the security and the respondent are the same as the applicant for the cancellation of the security, and in such case, if the both parties are not allowed to accept the application for the cancellation of the security due to the same person, the whole creditor or the transferee may not exercise all

3. Conclusion

Therefore, it is reasonable to allow the respondent to file an application for cancellation of the security of this case, and the original decision which dismissed the application of this case on account of its illegality shall not be dismissed.

Therefore, the original decision is revoked, and the case is remanded to the Daejeon District Court Civil Panel Division in accordance with Articles 413(1) and 388 of the Civil Procedure Act.

Judges Gangnam-gu (Presiding Judge)