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 lower court determined that the Defendants’ right to claim for the recovery of deposit money of G and H, a joint deposit, based on the title of the basic claim subject to suspension of execution, shall be deemed to belong to A who actually bears the deposit money, and therefore, the seizure and collection order, based on the title of the basic claim subject to suspension of execution, issued by the Defendants as to the claim for the recovery of deposit money of G and H, a joint deposit, which is a joint deposit money of G and H, shall not have any substantive effect since the execution creditor is not able to execute provisional execution until the judgment on the merits of the appeal is rendered. In this case, inasmuch as the security right of such respondent is not effective, the ownership and proportion of the right to claim for recovery of deposit money due to the cancellation of security shall be determined based on the substantive relation bearing the relevant funds.

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

Since the contents of the deposit made by the depositor are determined formally by the entry of the deposit, if several depositors make a joint deposit without dividing the amount of deposit by each depositor, the depositor shall be deemed to have made a deposit at an equal rate, and even if the internal share of the depositor is different, this is a matter to be resolved separately within the depositor.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2011Da79562, Mar. 29, 2012). This legal doctrine applies to the revocation of a security deposit under a joint name for the security of the suspension of compulsory execution.