1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The Plaintiff trusted 1/6 of the share of 32,61,580 square meters and 407 square meters (hereinafter “instant real estate”) in Ansan-si, Ansan-gu, the Plaintiff owned, the Plaintiff, under title trust, to the Defendant, who is the Defendant of the Plaintiff’s clan. In accepting the instant real estate, the Ansan-si, which was the Defendant as the principal deposit, and deposited KRW 32,661,580 in the Suwon District Court, No. 2929, July 14, 2010, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Plaintiff has the right to claim payment of the said deposit money ex officio. As such, the instant lawsuit is deemed lawful.

In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized as the most effective and appropriate means to eliminate the risks existing in the plaintiff's rights or legal status.

Since the person entitled to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods is the person to whom the deposited goods are deposited or his successor, and the person to whom the deposited goods are deposited is determined formally by the statement of the deposited goods, even if the creditor is a creditor under substantive law, he cannot exercise the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods unless

Therefore, even though a third party, who is not the person under deposit, was judged against the person under deposit to confirm the right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited article, the third party, who received the confirmed judgment, cannot directly make a claim for the withdrawal of deposited article.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2005Da67476 Decided August 25, 2006). In light of the above legal principles, even if the Plaintiff, which was not indicated as the principal of the deposit, was rendered judgment against the Defendant to confirm the existence of the claim for payment of deposit money against the Defendant, the claim for payment of deposit money directly cannot be made based on such judgment. Thus, the claim for confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money against the Defendant, the principal of the deposit, cannot be deemed as the most effective means to remove the Plaintiff’s right or legal status and risks existing in the Plaintiff’s legal status.

Ultimately, the instant lawsuit is the benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights.