1. Of the instant lawsuit, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit against the Defendant S&C Co., Ltd. is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff and the plaintiff.

1. Determination ex officio as to the legitimacy of the lawsuit against Defendant C&C

A. The facts of recognition are as follows: (a) the Plaintiff received a claim from the Defendant SPC Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant SPC”); (b) the Plaintiff notified Defendant SPC of the fact of the above assignment of claims; and (c) Defendant SPC received a delivery of the provisional attachment of claims, seizure of claims, and collection order against the Defendant SPC; (d) the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant SPC deposited each debt amount (hereinafter “the deposit of this case”); and (e) the facts stated in both Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act in each deposit are either disputed between the parties, or the purport of the entire pleadings can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the following points: (a) the notice of assignment of claims against the Defendant SPC was served; and (b) the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff, and the Defendant SPC deposited each debt amount as described in paragraph (2) of the Disposition.

B. According to the above facts, the deposit of this case is a mixed deposit with the repayment deposit and the execution deposit, and from the perspective of the relative non-defensive deposit, in order for one of the deposited parties to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods, there is a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other deposited parties to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods against a third party other than the deposited parties (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596, Oct. 23, 2008). In light of the execution deposit, in order for the deposited goods to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods, it is necessary to submit a document proving that the deposited party has the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods in relation to the other deposited parties and the execution creditor, but it is against a third party debtor who is not the execution creditor.