In the case of a relative non-payment deposit, the consent of other depositors or the confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods will be the final judgment in order to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods.

In the case of a relative uncertainty deposit, there is a final and conclusive judgment in favor of one of the deposited parties against the other deposited parties in order to claim the withdrawal of the deposited goods. Thus, in such a case as above, it is dismissed as there is no benefit of confirmation to seek the confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against a third party who is not the deposited party.

2016da 114966 Action to confirm the claim for payment of deposit money

aa

Republic of Korea, bbb

November 24, 2017

January 12, 2018

1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Cheong-gu Office

CCC on April 14, 2014 confirmed that the right to claim the payment of deposit money for xx, and xx members deposited by the deposit official of the Seoul Eastern District Court was the Plaintiff on April 14, 2014 as the gold No. 1443.

1. Basic facts

A. On November 25, 2013, AA transferred to BB a lease deposit claim (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”) of KRW 50 million on the second floor No. 01-16 (hereinafter referred to as “instant commercial building”), which AA had against CCC (hereinafter referred to as “instant claim”), and notified CCC by mail verifying the contents of the instant claim, and issued CCC a notice of the said assignment on February 26, 2014.

B. On February 26, 2014, AA transferred the instant claim to DDR, and notified CCC of the fact of the assignment of the instant claim by means of a certified content-proof mail, and sent CCC a notice of the assignment of the said claim to CCC on the same day. In addition, DDA made a notarized deed on April 7, 2014 (a notarized deed with executory power of No. 247, 2014 by a notary public in preparation of Cccc law office) as its title and received a claim attachment and collection order as Seoul East East District Court 2014TTTT5190 with respect to the instant claim as the title of title, with the amount of claim as X, Xxxxx, andxxx, and the seizure and collection order were served to CCC, a third party debtor, around April 14, 2014.

C. On November 25, 2013, AA transferred x andxx only of the instant claims to EE on November 25, 2013, and on April 7, 2014, CCC notified CCC of the fact of the assignment of claims by mail verifying the contents of the fixed date and sent CCC a notice of the said assignment of claims to CCC on the same day.

D. On April 14, 2014, the CCC received each of the above notifications of the assignment of claims, and around 11:00 on April 14, 2014, and around 201:4, hereinafter “CCC deposited the bonds of this case after deducting overdue rent, etc. from the deposits of this case from DDdddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddddd.

E. At the time of May 8, 2014, DNA filed a lawsuit against AA, BB, and EE as of May 2, 2014, the Seoul Eastern District Court 2014da22315, and on November 18, 2014, the amount of claims acquired by DD, BB, respectively, is 50 million won. At the same time as of February 26, 2014, the notice of assignment of claims made to CCC on April 7, 2014, and the subsequent notification of assignment of claims to EE was sent to the debtor on April 2, 2014, and therefore, the instant deposit was confirmed to be x, x, x, x, x, x, 12, x 30 of the instant deposit claims to B, x1, x2, x1, x2, x1, x2, x3, x1, x1, x2, of the instant deposit claims to B.

F. On July 14, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against AA, DD, BB, and EE as Seoul Central District Court Decision 2014Da5205013, and filed a lawsuit seeking a claim for reimbursement, etc. based on the credit guarantee agreement and revocation of fraudulent act, and on July 14, 2015, “AAA” with the above court rendered a final decision that: (a) from May 29, 2014 to October 11, 2014; (b) from the next day, the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s claim for payment to the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter referred to as “EA”); and (c) from the date of full payment, the Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s claim for payment to the Plaintiff; and (d) transferred the Plaintiff’s claim for payment to the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter referred to as the “EA”); and (d) the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the Plaintiff’s deposit to the Seoul Central District Court (hereinafter referred to as the “EA”).

G. On the other hand, on April 22, 2014, the Plaintiff received the provisional seizure order against the money up to the Plaintiff’s credit amount among the instant claims by Seoul Western District Court 2014Kadan50858, and CCC was served on April 28, 2014. On September 2, 2015, the instant judgment was rendered by the Plaintiff as the executive title, and the Plaintiff was served on the Republic of Korea as a garnishee, a garnishee. On September 7, 2015, the instant judgment was issued by AA to the Government District Court 2015TT56 with respect to the instant deposited payment claim that was transferred from D or BB according to the instant judgment, and was served on the Republic of Korea as the garnishee.

(h) The attachment notification was served on June 26, 2014 on the deposit officer of the Seoul Eastern District Court that the Defendant Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as the Central District Court) has against the Republic of Korea (Seoul Eastern District Court) the total sum of the national tax claims, such as the value added tax on the AA, and the sum of the sum of the national tax claims,xx, andxxxx, including the value added tax on the AA, and the amount until the delinquent amount is seized among the claim amount, was served on the deposit officer of the Seoul East East District Court. The attachment notification was served on the deposit officer of the Seoul East District Court on December 30, 2015.

(i) On March 25, 2016, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against AA, DD, EE, and BB as Seoul Eastern District Court Decision 2015Kadan128173, and confirmed that “the Plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of the deposit money from the above court” was the Plaintiff on March 25, 2016.

[Reasons for Recognition]

Aa: Presumption of Confession

Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number), Eul evidence 1

as to Defendant Aaa, the purport of the entire pleadings, the deeming of confession

2. Determination as to the legitimacy of the instant lawsuit

A. Determination on Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits

1) Defenses prior to the merits

Defendant Republic of Korea shall have a defense prior to the merits to the effect that the deposit of this case constitutes a relative unforeseeable deposit, and that the lawsuit for confirmation of the claim for payment of the deposit of this case against the Defendant Republic of Korea, who is not the person to whom the deposit was made, has no interest in confirmation.

The plaintiff asserts that since CCC, the deposit of this case, made the deposit of this case on the ground that the deposit of this case, which is the deposit of this case, filed a request for payment in accordance with DD, BB, and EE's transfer of claims, seizure of claims, and notice of collection, etc., the plaintiff asserts that the deposit of this case has a benefit to confirm the right to claim for payment of the deposit of this case against the defendants, the execution creditor who is not the deposit, in order to pay the deposit of this case, because the deposit of this case and the execution deposit of this case are mixed deposits

2) Determination

A deposit is made under his/her responsibility and judgment, and the depositor may choose the deposit for repayment, the execution deposit, or the mixed deposit according to his/her own judgment. Whether a third party obligor has made a repayment deposit, whether the execution deposit has been made or not, or whether the mixed deposit has been made is bound to be determined by comprehensively and reasonably taking into account the designation of the person against whom the deposit was made, the basis provision of the deposit, the reason for the deposit, the report on the reason for the deposit, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2006Da74693, May 15, 2008).

The reason why CCC deposited the instant claim is that "the assignee of the instant claim reaches February 26, 2014, the notification of the assignment of claims reached on February 26, 2014, and the notification of the assignment of claims reached on February 26, 2014, BB by the assignee of the instant claim, and the depositor cannot be identified as the true creditor because the transferee of the instant claim cannot determine the validity of the said assignment of claims because of competition with the notification of the assignment of claims reached on April 7, 2014, EE. The written evidence of the basis of the deposit is the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act, and is designated as DD, BB, EB, EE, and AA, and it is reasonable to deem that CCC’s relative deposit constitutes the instant basic deposit, as seen above, according to the fact that CCC’s relative deposit was served on the date it deposited on April 24, 2014, and on April 11, 2014.

On the other hand, in the case of a relative non-defensive deposit, there is a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other deposited parties in order for one of the deposited parties to claim a return of deposited goods to claim a return of deposited goods. Thus, in such a case, seeking confirmation of the right to claim a return of deposited goods against a third party who is not the deposited party does not have any benefit of confirmation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596, Oct. 23, 2008).

In light of the above legal principles, this part of the lawsuit seeking confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money against the Defendant Republic of Korea who is not the principal depositee of the instant case corresponding to the deposit for payment of the relative uncertainty is without any interest in confirmation. Defendant Republic of Korea’s defense prior to the merits is with merit.

B. Determination ex officio as to Defendant Aa

Ex officio, there is no benefit in confirmation of this part of the suit seeking confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit against Defendant Aa, who is not the depositor of the instant case, for the reasons as described in the foregoing paragraph (a) as to the legitimacy of the suit.

3. Conclusion

The lawsuit of this case is dismissed as it is unlawful because there is no benefit of confirmation.