1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

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

1. Judgment on the main defense of this case

A. The Plaintiff seeks confirmation that the Plaintiff’s right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit stated in the purport of the claim for a mixed deposit made by the ordinary North Korean Dos exists, and that the Defendant’s seizure of the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposit stated in B is null and void.

B. First, this paper examines the claim for confirmation of the right to claim for payment of deposit money.

In a case where a debtor makes a mixed deposit due to the cause for repayment deposit in the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act and the cause for execution deposit in Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, in order to claim a withdrawal of deposited goods, it is sufficient to submit a document proving that another depositor and execution creditor have the right to claim a withdrawal of deposited goods in relation to the other person under deposit and execution creditor. Thus, seeking confirmation of a claim for a withdrawal of deposited goods against other persons who are not execution creditors cannot be deemed as benefit of confirmation.

However, in full view of the evidence Nos. 6-1 and 6-2 as well as the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant does not attach claims that constitute the grounds for the deposit stated in the purport of the claim, but rather attach claims for payment of deposit money deposited in B.

If so, the defendant does not correspond to the beneficiary or execution creditor of the above deposit cause claim. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit is unlawful.

C. Next, we examine the claims for confirmation of invalidation of seizure.

Since seizure of a claim is only a relative effect between an execution creditor and an obligor, if a seized claim belongs to a third party's right other than a debtor, such seizure disposition is no longer effective because it is an attachment of a claim that does not exist. There is no effect on the legal relationship of a third party who is a real right holder, even if a claim that does not belong to an obligor is seized, so a third party may dispose of the claim, and claim the performance of the obligation to a third party obligor, and the third party obligor shall be liable.