(a) Validity of conditional deposit for repayment to creditors who have no obligation to pay in return (negative);

(b) Validity of payment deposits on condition that documents, such as a certificate of personal seal impression, are delivered to debtors;

(a) In making a deposit for performance, if the obligor deposits on such terms and conditions as the obligee has no obligation to effect any counter-performance or other terms and conditions, the deposit for performance shall be null and void unless the obligee accepts it;

B. Even if the consignee of the deposited goods is required to attach documents such as a certificate of seal impression to the request for the withdrawal of deposited goods pursuant to the deposit transaction rules, it is apparent that the contents of the consideration for the deposit of this case are not the request for the payment of deposited goods, but the request for the delivery of a certificate of seal impression and a certified copy of the register of the deposited goods. Thus, it cannot be deemed that the contents of the deposit of this case are nothing more than the entry of the certificate of seal impression and the copy of the register, and it cannot be deemed that the payment was made in accordance with the original terms and conditions, and the above conditions are not acceptable in accordance with the principle of good faith. Thus, the repayment deposit

Articles 487, 536 of the Civil Act, Articles 29 and 30 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs

Supreme Court Decision 70Da1061 Decided September 22, 1970, Decision 78Nu398 Decided October 30, 1979, Decision 65Da2431 Decided February 15, 1966

[Defendant-Appellee] Defendant 1

Attorney Ahn Byung-soo, Counsel for the defendant-appellant

Gwangju District Court Decision 83Na321 delivered on January 10, 1984

The appeal is dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. We examine the first ground for appeal by the defendant's attorney.

The gist of the grounds of appeal is that the plaintiff asserted that he shall exercise a redemptive right to the land of this case in the first instance court under Article 71 of the Land Expropriation Act, but the second instance court tried to cancel the transfer of ownership registered in the name of the defendant on the ground that the decision of expropriation became effective because the payment did not take effect because the deposit of the compensation for the land of this case is accompanied by the illegal conditions, and the decision of expropriation became null and void. However, the court below erred by misapprehending the legal principles as to the concept of the basis of the claim or changes in the basis of the claim.

However, the above reasons do not constitute any of the grounds for appeal under each subparagraph of Article 11(1) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, and they do not constitute legitimate grounds for appeal.

2. We examine the second ground for appeal.

When the obligor deposits on the condition that the obligee does not have an obligation to make any counter-performance or any other terms in the repayment deposit, the obligor deposits on the condition that the obligee does not have an effect unless the obligee accepts the deposit. The Supreme Court Decision 70Da1061 Decided Sept. 22, 1970; 78Nu398 Decided Oct. 30, 1979, etc.).

According to the facts duly established by the court below, the defendant was obligated to submit a certified copy of the register where ownership transfer registration has been made in the name of the consignee of the deposited goods and a certificate of the personal seal impression of the consignee of the deposited goods in return for deposit of the compensation for the land expropriation of this case to the deposited public official. Thus, unless the plaintiff, the consignee of the deposited goods, has accepted the contents of the above consideration, the above deposit for repayment shall be null and void.

The issue is that the deposit recipient is required to submit the certificate of the seal impression and the copy of the register, and the conditions of the deposit for repayment are specified as natural, even if not, the condition that the certificate of the registration of the transfer of ownership was requested to the plaintiff who has completed the registration of the transfer of ownership cannot be considered as unfair conditions when considering the actual, reasonable, and even if not, the above deposit for payment is legitimate in light of the principle of trust and good faith, so the previous precedents that regard the deposit for payment as invalid all the terms, conditions, or burdens imposed on the original obligation from a formal and critical point of view should be amended.

However, even if the consignee of the deposited money submits the documents, such as the certificate of seal impression, at the time of the request for the delivery of deposited money, pursuant to the deposit office rules, as in the lawsuit, even though the contents of the consideration for the payment of deposited money in this case do not require the documents necessary for the request for the delivery of deposited money, and it is clear that the contents of the consideration have been separately demanded from the certificate of seal impression and the copy of the register to be delivered to the depositor. In addition, the above payment deposit under the condition that the certificate of seal impression and the copy of the register are issued, it cannot be deemed that the original obligation cannot be viewed as the repayment of the Defendant’s obligation, and the above condition cannot be deemed as the original obligation of the Plaintiff, and it cannot be deemed that the above condition is to have been affected by the validity of the repayment under the good faith principle, and therefore, the court below’s decision that the payment of deposited money in this case has no validity is just and does not seem to have any need

3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Lee Lee Sung-soo (Presiding Justice)