1. Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant B and C by the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) is revoked, and corresponding to that part.

1. In the instant case where the Plaintiff sought confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money against the Defendants as the principal lawsuit, and the Defendant seeks revocation of fraudulent act as a counterclaim, the judgment of the first instance court that dismissed the principal lawsuit and dismissed the counterclaim is obvious that only the Plaintiff filed an appeal against the principal lawsuit. Accordingly, only this part of the judgment is subject to the judgment of this court.

2. The reasoning for the court’s explanation as to this part of the facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except where “the result of the fact inquiry about the truth-finding of this court” in Section 8 of Article 5 of the judgment of the court of first instance is deemed as “the result of fact inquiry about the fact-finding of the court of first instance.”

3. Whether the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B and C is legitimate or not, since the plaintiff sought confirmation against the defendant B and C that the deposited person belongs to the plaintiff as stated in the purport of the claim, the plaintiff's claim for payment of the deposit of this case shall be examined as to the legitimacy of the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B and C.

In cases where a debtor deposits together with the grounds for repayment deposit and the grounds for execution deposit, and where the transferee of the claim intends to pay the deposit, he/she shall submit in writing a certified copy of the written consent of other depositors and the creditors subject to seizure and provisional seizure, or of the judgment verifying their legal relationship against them, etc.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da56015 Decided January 17, 2008, etc.). Meanwhile, the benefit of confirmation in a lawsuit for confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, the determination of the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment is the most effective and appropriate means when the Plaintiff’s legal status is unstable and dangerous (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2009Da93299, Feb. 25, 2010). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health team and the Plaintiff regarding the instant case.