Whether a creditor who has filed a lawsuit of demurrer against a distribution shall comply with the procedures prescribed in Article 39 of the Regulations on the Management of Deposit Affairs, in cases where a person who has received an attachment and assignment order with respect to the claim for payment of the deposit under the corrected distribution schedule among the deposit money under Article 589(3) of the Civil Procedure Act exercises the claim for payment of deposit after the judgment became final

Article 39 of the Rules on the Deposit Affairs is a special provision on the procedures for the withdrawal of deposited goods in a case where the payment of deposited goods is made by the decision of a public office such as the distribution of deposited goods and the distribution of deposited goods. Thus, in a case where the execution court deposited the amount of dividends to the creditor who has filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution pursuant to Article 589(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, in order for the creditor to receive the payment of dividends according to the revised distribution schedule among the deposited money after the judgment accepting a partial claim for a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution became final and conclusive, as prescribed by Article 39 of the said Rules, the court of execution in receipt of such application shall first apply for the delivery of dividends to the deposit officer by proving the fact that the judgment of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution became final and conclusive, and the court of execution in receipt of such application shall send the deposit to the deposit official and deliver the creditor a certificate of qualification to receive the payment. Meanwhile, the seizure and assignment order of claims only causes a change to the execution procedure for the seized claims, and it does not change in any change in the execution procedure.

Article 39 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs, Articles 557, 564, and 589(3) of the Civil Procedure Act

Llil Agricultural Cooperatives (Attorney Kim Jae- Jae et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Suwon District Court Order 99Ra966 dated September 11, 1999

The reappeal is dismissed.

The grounds for reappeal are examined.

Article 39 of the Rules on the Deposit Affairs is a special provision on the procedures for the withdrawal of deposited goods in a case where the payment of deposited goods is made by the decision of a public office such as the distribution of deposited goods and the distribution of deposited goods. Thus, in a case where the execution court deposited the amount of dividends to the creditor who has filed a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution pursuant to Article 589(3) of the Civil Procedure Act, in order for the creditor to receive the payment of dividends according to the revised distribution schedule among the deposited money after the judgment accepting a partial claim for a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution became final and conclusive, as prescribed by Article 39 of the Rules, first of all, the execution court shall apply for the delivery of dividends to the deposited public official by proving the fact that the judgment of a lawsuit of demurrer against distribution became final and conclusive. The execution court in receipt of such application shall send a written entrustment of payment to the deposited public official and the creditor shall request the withdrawal of the deposited money to the deposited public official along with this certificate, while the seizure and assignment order of claims only causes changes to the execution procedure for the seized claim, and it shall also affect the creditor's claim for payment of deposit money.

In the same purport, the decision of the court below that the deposited public official's non-acceptance of the claim for the return of deposit money of this case is justified for the non-performance of the procedure of the re-appellant, which is the entire creditor, is correct, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding legal principles

The grounds for the reappeal shall not be accepted.

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-sik (Presiding Justice)