The judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. After finding the facts as stated in its holding, the court below determined that in the case of guarantee for the suspension of compulsory execution pursuant to the appeal against the judgment with a provisional execution declaration, deposit money as a joint guarantee provided by multiple applicants is ordinary damage arising from the result that the execution creditor is unable to execute provisional execution until the judgment on the merits of the appeal is rendered, and that in the case of a claim for recovery of deposit due to the cancellation of security in a relationship with the effect of the security right of the respondent, the ownership of the claim for recovery and the ratio of the claim for recovery are determined according to the relation with the actual burden of the fund. Thus, in this case, the claim for recovery of deposit due to the cancellation of security deposit under the joint name of the corporation A (hereinafter referred to as the "A") and I, and I, and J shall be deemed to belong to A who actually bears the deposit funds. Accordingly, the court below determined that since the seizure and collection order for the claim for recovery deposit of I and J based on the executive title with respect to the basic claim subject to the suspension of execution, it does not have any substantive effect.

2. However, we cannot agree with the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

Since the contents of the deposit made by the depositor are determined formally by the entry of the deposit, if several depositors do not divide the amount of deposit and jointly enter the amount of deposit in the deposit, the depositor shall be deemed to have deposited at an equal rate. Even if the actual share of the deposit is different, this is a matter to be resolved separately within the depositor.

Supreme Court Decision 2011Da79562 Decided March 29, 2012