beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On January 4, 2007, a limited partnership company located in Seoban (hereinafter referred to as “ Seoban”) obtained permission from the Defendant to extract aggregate with the content that the gathering area is 58,416m2 and the permission period is 58,416m2 and the gathering area is from January 4, 2007 to April 30, 2007.
B. At the time of granting the above permission to extract aggregate, the Defendant had Seoban deposit expenses incurred in the restoration to the original state in the manner that the pledge was granted on the regular deposit amount of KRW 429 million owned by D and one other.
C. The two Industrial Development Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Dusan Development”) received a collection order for the attachment and collection of claims against “100,272,920 won out of the deposit refund claims against the Defendant of Seoun aggregate” on April 11, 2007 based on the executory exemplification of notarial deeds No. 136 of the 2007 Certificate of 2007 by E notary public, under the title of “10,272,920 out of the deposit refund claims against the Defendant of Seoun aggregate,” and ② based on the executory payment order under Article 207j3599 from the Daejeon District Court of Hongsung Branch of the Daejeon District Court, Hongsung Branch Branch of the Daejeon District Court on December 4, 2007, under the title of “81,164,843 won out of the deposit claims to be returned to the Defendant of Seoun aggregate” (hereinafter “each collection order”).
On January 7, 2008, the Seocho-gu demanded the Defendant to submit an application for confirmation of completion of restoration to the original state after completing the restoration of the land subject to aggregate extraction and take procedures such as the refund of deposit.
E. Accordingly, the Defendant, following the seizure and collection order of each of the instant claims, received a claim for the refund of the deposit, etc., requested legal advice from F judicial scriveners and G attorneys, and from each of the above advisers, “the Defendant is not keeping the deposit money in cash, etc. from the Hudin.” Thus, the Hudin does not have a claim for the refund of deposit against the Defendant, and therefore, the obligee’s deposit.