All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. As to the primary claim, the Plaintiff was issued a written notice of succession execution against the Seoul Central District Court Decision 2016Ga District Court Decision 68026 and succeeded to the collection gold case (22077, 2019Na 54957, 2018, 2018, 2077, 2019Na 54957,) which is the enforcement title of the said judgment. In light of the progress of the above collection gold case, there is no reason to deny the Plaintiff’s entitlement or confirmation interest.

3 The obligor may deposit the full amount of monetary claims related to the seizure (Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act). In light of the fact that the above execution deposit is the means assigned to the obligor to the third obligor as the right, and that the compensation for delayed damage is given to delay in the performance of monetary obligations as the remedy, the execution cannot be deemed null and void on the ground that the Defendant made the deposit without voluntary repayment.

In the case of submitting the third debtor's statement, the third party's third party's obligation is not bound by the statement, and thus, the third party's third party's obligation stated his refusal to pay the seized claim on the ground of the existence of opposing claim cannot be deemed null and void.

Even if a seizure order was issued with an execution deposit excluding interest on the effect of the seizure order or delay damages, the scope of extinction of the seized claim due to the execution deposit can only be said to be a problem, and the execution deposit itself cannot be said to be null and void.

Ultimately, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant’s deposit is null and void.

2. If the Plaintiff filed a claim for damages for delay in the instant collection case with the intervenor succeeding to the said collection claim, there is a problem of double-litigation related to a partial claim, but there is no evidence to verify which claim the Plaintiff had made accurately, so the problem of double-litigation will not be followed.

The liability of the third party shall be delayed in relation to the amount of claims seized to the creditor who seized the property.