The deposit for repayment has become effective due to the trustee disposal and the receipt of the deposited goods by the custodian, and has brought about the effect of the extinguishment of the obligation.

The deposit for performance takes effect by the trustee disposal and the receipt of the deposited article by the custodian of the deposited article, and the effect of the extinguishment of the obligation is not effective when the obligee's notice of deposit to the obligee or the obligee's declaration of intent to make profits exists.

Article 489(2) of the Civil Act, Article 4 of the Deposit Act

Re-appellant

Other Party

Cheongju District Court Decision 71Ra17 delivered on February 25, 1972

The reappeal is dismissed.

Re-appellant's ground of re-appeal No. 1

On February 6, 1969.2. 10:00 of the auction price, the auction court has cancelled the auction decision and dismissed the auction request on the 5th of the same month immediately before the due date of payment, and at the same time, if each decision was concluded by suspending the auction procedure, the auction court can not receive even if each decision has not been notified to the parties, so each decision includes an intention that the auction court will change the deadline of payment of the auction price, and the deadline of payment of the auction price should be deemed to have changed.

The second ground for reappeal is examined.

The deposit of performance takes effect upon the receipt of the deposit by the deposit public official and the receipt of the deposited article by the deposit administrator, which brings about the effect of extinction of the obligation, and it does not take effect when the creditor's notice of deposit to the creditor or the creditor's declaration of intent to make profits. Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of the court below is just

We examine the third ground for re-appeal.

In this case, since the mortgage is extinguished due to the other party's repayment deposit, it is said that the deposit does not have the right to recover the deposited goods under Article 489 (2) of the Civil Code, so even if the other party has recovered the deposited goods under Article 489 (1) of the Civil Code, it cannot be said that the withdrawal of deposited goods takes effect (see Article 32 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs). Therefore, there is no error of law in the decision of the court below that held

Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Judge) Park Jae-dong (Presiding Judge)