beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited this case is as follows, except for an additional determination as to the Plaintiff’s assertion made at the court of first instance as to this case as to the following two, and thus, it is acceptable to accept it as it is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff received a claim for payment of the instant deposit from D, and thus, the Plaintiff is entitled to a claim for payment of KRW 2 million out of the instant deposit money as security for damages.
B. According to the evidence evidence evidence Nos. 9 and 15 through 18, D transferred to the Plaintiff on May 25, 2015, “The claim for payment of deposit money No. 5041 (the instant deposit) in the Seoul Southern District Court 2015Kadan2340, which was the claim of D’s provisional seizure against the Republic of Korea,” and on July 31, 2016, “The Seoul Southern Southern District Court 2016TTTT3277, which D has against the Republic of Korea, transferred the provisional seizure No. 2016TT3277 to the Republic of Korea as the main seizure, and its collection right or collection claim [the same court 5041 (the instant deposit)]. The Plaintiff’s assertion appears to the purport that the Plaintiff received the claim for payment of deposit money from DD due to compulsory execution against D.
However, the security deposited to suspend compulsory execution against the judgment of the provisional execution ordering monetary payment is to secure a creditor of the judgment amounting to a loss caused by the suspension of compulsory execution, and the creditor of the judgment has the same right as the pledgee with respect to the security only to claim damages (Articles 502(3) and 123 of the Civil Procedure Act), and D’s claim for payment of the deposit of this case is based on the claim for restitution of unjust enrichment, etc. of this case.