All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. Where a garnishee makes an execution deposit pursuant to Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, or Articles 291 and 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act on the ground of seizure or provisional seizure, the claims subject to provisional seizure against the garnishee shall be extinguished, and on the other hand, the provisional seizure order on the claims shall take effect upon the service of such order to the garnishee (Articles 227(3) and 291 of the Civil Execution Act), and even if the provisional seizure order is issued upon the request of other creditors on the same claims subject to provisional seizure before the garnishee's execution deposit, if such order is served to him/her after the third obligor's deposit is made, such provisional seizure order shall not take effect since it relates to the claims subject to provisional seizure already extinguished due to the execution deposit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2008Da59391 Decided November 27, 2008, etc.). Meanwhile, even if a provisional seizure order issued upon request by another creditor was served on a third debtor after the execution deposit by the third debtor, if it is stated in the report on the reason for deposit, the execution court could have known the same fact not later than the time when the report on the reason for deposit, which is the completion date for the demand for distribution, was filed, and if such creditor has the right to preferential reimbursement or has an executory exemplification under the law, the validity of demand for distribution shall be recognized. However, if the execution court could not know the same fact by the time when the report on the reason for deposit was filed, even if such seizure was served on the third debtor before the report on the reason for deposit, the validity of demand for distribution cannot be recognized.

Furthermore, this legal principle also applies to the so-called mixed deposits deposited after the execution deposits under the Civil Execution Act and the repayment deposits under the Civil Act are mixed.

2. According to the reasoning of the lower judgment, the Defendant Geumgang corporation is a stock company.