In the case of mixed deposits, whether the person who belongs to the right to claim the deposit;

Where a third-party obligor deposits the amount of monetary claims provisionally seized after provisional seizure of claims, the effect of such provisional seizure is limited to the obligor's right to demand withdrawal against the amount of deposits equivalent to the amount of such claims. Therefore, in case where the obligor or the third-party obligor deposits the amount of monetary claims after the provisional seizure of claims with the grounds for repayment deposit on the ground that it is impossible for the obligee or the third-party obligor to make a mixed deposit, the

1. On February 21, 2008, Nonparty 324,362,483 won deposited by the Seoul Eastern District Court No. 707 of 2008, which was confirmed that the right to claim the withdrawal of KRW 154,362,483 among the 324,362,483 won was against the Plaintiff.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Defendants.

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Facts of recognition;

The following facts are: (a) there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and Defendant Technology Credit Guarantee Fund; (b) literacy; (c) the Korea Development Bank; (d) the ○○ New Airport; (c) ○○○○; (d) the ○○○○○○○○○○○○○; (d) the Korea Workers’ Compensation and Welfare Service; and (e) there is no dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; or (e) the National Health Insurance Service; or (e) the overall purport of the arguments in the statements in subparagraphs

A. On August 5, 2005, the Plaintiff acquired KRW 195,000,000, out of the lease deposit claim (hereinafter referred to as "the deposit claim of this case") against the non-party 1, 200, 360,000,000 out of the lease deposit claim of KRW 360,00,00 among the lease deposit claim of the non-party 1, 200, 200, 200, 360,000, 200, 2000, 2000, to secure the loan claim against the non-party 1, 200, 2000, 2000, 360,000,000, to the lessor by content-certified mail on August 5, 2005, and the notification was reached to the lessor on August 7, 2005:

B. Meanwhile, the Defendant Technology Credit Guarantee Fund acquired KRW 170,000,000, out of the instant bonds from Defendant ○○ Electronic, and Defendant ○○ Electronic notified the lessor of the said assignment of claims by means of content-certified mail on November 3, 2003, and the said notification arrived at the lessor on November 5, 2003.

C. After that, Defendant Korea Technology Credit Guarantee Fund, Da○ electronic creditor, Korea Development Bank, Korea Development Bank, National Pension Service, National Health Insurance Corporation, ○○ Newcom Co., Ltd., Kim Il-ok, ○○○○○○○ Association, ○○○○○○○○ Association, Korea Workers’ Compensation & Welfare Corporation, and Cor○○ Company, as shown in the attached list, provisionally seized or seized the instant claim as shown in the attached

D. On February 21, 2008, the lessor could not know who is the genuine right holder of the claim of this case among the Plaintiff, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, and the ○○ Electronic, the Korea Technology Finance Corporation, the Plaintiff, and the relevant protocol were made as follows: (a) Article 487 of the Civil Act and Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act; (b) Article 324,362,483 won (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”) was combined deposit (hereinafter referred to as “the instant deposit”) after subtracting the total amount of 35,637,517 won, etc. of the unpaid management expenses, etc. of Defendant ○ Electronic, out of the instant deposit claims.

2. Determination

A. Where a claim is transferred doublely, the order between the assignee is determined by the date of receipt of the notification of transfer with the fixed date of the assignment of claim by the obligor or by the date and time of acceptance with the fixed date of acceptance with the obligor, and such legal principle also applies to the case where the assignee and the executor of provisional seizure or seizure order determines the heat between the obligor and the same claim (see Supreme Court Decision 93Da24223, Apr. 26, 1994). Meanwhile, where a third obligor has deposited the amount of a claim provisionally seized after provisional seizure of claim, the provisional seizure effect is limited to the obligor’s right to claim payment for the amount of deposit equivalent to the amount of the claim (see Article 297 of the Civil Execution Act), and where the obligor (in the case of the assignment of claim) or the third obligor (in the case of the seizure of claim, etc.) together with the reasons for the repayment deposit and the reasons for execution deposit on the ground that it is impossible for the obligee, the right to claim payment of the deposit

B. On November 5, 2003, the notification of the assignment of the credit with the fixed date to which the Defendant Technology Credit Guarantee Fund acquired KRW 17,000,000, out of the credit of the instant security deposit from Defendant ○○ Electric, was delivered to the lessor on August 7, 2005. The Plaintiff received the notification of the assignment of credit from Defendant ○○ Electronic that the Plaintiff acquired KRW 195,00,000, out of the credit of the instant security deposit, to the lessor on August 7, 2005. The original copy of the notification of the attachment of the above credit (provisional attachment) by the Defendants stated in the attached list was delivered to the lessor after the date of the above assignment of credit was delivered to the lessor. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff’s claim against the Plaintiff to seek confirmation of the remainder of KRW 170,362,483 won (=324,362,483 won - - 170,000,000).