2014Da5739 Objection by a third party

A Manager B of the Rehabilitation Company A

1. C.

2. D;

3. E.

Seoul High Court Decision 2013Na32262 Decided December 19, 2013

February 18, 2016

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 the claim for recovery of deposit money due to the cancellation of the security deposit under the joint name of the Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "A") and G, and H, and the claim for recovery of deposit money due to the cancellation of the security deposit shall be deemed to belong to A who actually bears the deposit money, and therefore, the Defendants’ seizure and collection order based on the title of the basic claim subject to suspension of execution, G, and H’s claim for recovery of deposit money, which is a joint depositor, based on the title of execution concerning the basic claim subject to suspension of execution, shall not be effective until the judgment on the merits of the appeal is rendered by the enforcement creditor. In the case where the security right of the respondent is not effective, since the ownership and proportion of the claim for recovery of deposit money due to the cancellation of the security deposit shall be determined according to the real relation bearing the funds.

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

Since the contents of a deposit made by a depositee are determined formally by the entry of the deposit. If one deposit amount is jointly entered without dividing the amount of deposit by each depositee, the depositee shall be deemed to have been deposited at an equal rate. Even if the internal share of the depositee differs, this is a matter to be resolved separately inside the depositer (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da79562, Mar. 29, 2012). This legal principle applies to the proportion of the ownership of the right to claim the deposit upon the cancellation of a compulsory execution where the joint deposit is made for the security of the compulsory execution (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da79562, Mar. 29, 2012). Therefore, even if a joint depositee has actually contributed to the full amount of the deposit, this is merely an internal relation among the joint deposit depositors. Thus, even if a third party has issued a seizure and collection order against the other joint deposit obligee’s right to claim the deposit money, the court below held that the full deposit may not belong to the creditor’s right to claim the deposit.

3. Therefore, without further proceeding to decide on the grounds of appeal on the BB site, the lower judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Chief Judge Go-young

Justices Lee In-bok

Justices Kim Gin-young

Chief Justice Lee Dong-won