In the case of a relative non-afford payment deposit, seeking confirmation of the right to claim the payment of deposit against a third party who is not the person to receive the deposit cannot be deemed as having a benefit of confirmation.

The deposit of this case cannot be effective as an execution deposit on the ground of the seizure of the defendant's Republic of Korea, the execution creditor due to the disposition on default. However, it is valid only as the repayment deposit of the creditor's non-payment due to the direct payment agreement, and thus, it cannot be said that a favorable judgment against the defendant's Republic of Korea or the judgment in favor of the plaintiff

2014 Ghana 19452 Demanding re-verification of the existence of the right to claim a payment of deposit

Since the deposit does not take effect, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant Republic of Korea is eventually a dispute.

There is no interest in confirmation because it cannot be viewed as a valid and appropriate means to resolve the problem.

3. Claim against Defendant AA Industry Development Corporation

(a) Indication of claims: To be recorded in the above part of the grounds for the claims as shown in the annex;

(b) Judgment made by deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

4. Conclusion

Then, the plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant's Republic of Korea is unlawful and dismissed, and defendant AA Industrial Complex is dismissed.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the claim against the corporation.

Yang-○

1. AA industry development company;

2. Korea;

Republic of Korea: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, and purport of the whole pleadings

2. Whether the lawsuit against the defendant is lawful

(a) Procedures for disposition on default and civil execution procedures are separate procedures, and they are in a relationship between both procedures;

shall not interfere with the procedure of the other party, unless there is a provision of the law prescribed therein.

Each creditor in both proceedings shall participate in the other proceedings in such a manner as to determine the different procedures.

There is no choice but to be done (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da33842, Nov. 13, 2008). The National Tax Collection Act

Difference between attachment and attachment under the Civil Execution Act and the effect of attachment, and gap between the procedure for delinquent disposition and compulsory execution.

In light of the above, ‘a seizure', which is the premise for deposit under Article 248(1) of the Civil Execution Act, is a seizure.

Attachment of claims under the National Tax Collection Act is not included in the seizure of claims (Supreme Court Decision 2004Da2004 Decided April 12, 2007).

see Supreme Court Decision 20326). In addition, in the case of deposit for repayment with a relative uncertainty, one of the depositors is deposited.

in order to request the withdrawal of the depository institution, the written consent of the other depository institution or the withdrawal of the depository institution against it.

Inasmuch as there is a final and conclusive judgment of winning the claim for payment, it is not the person to receive the deposit in the above case.

It cannot be said that there is a benefit of confirmation to seek confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposited goods against the party.

C. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2007Da35596, Oct. 23, 2008).

B. As to the instant case, the Health Board, BBD Co., Ltd.’s obligee unknown and Defendant Republic of Korea

the deposit of this case, even if the deposit of this case was made by determining the cause of the seizure deposit. The deposit of this case

execution deposit shall not be made on the grounds of seizure of defendant's Republic of Korea, who is an execution creditor by disposition on default.

(2) the Corporation shall not have any effect on the part of the Corporation, except that such bank shall not have any effect on the part of the

on the premise that the deposit in this case is an execution deposit, and the defendant representative required on the assumption that the deposit in this case is an execution deposit.

It is necessary for the plaintiff to receive a favorable judgment on the confirmation of the right to claim the payment of deposit against the consent of the Republic of Korea and its country.

the defendant who is an execution creditor due to the disposition on default shall not be deemed to have been

July 15, 2014

August 26, 2014

1. The plaintiff's action against the defendant is dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff and Defendant AA Industry Development Co., Ltd. confirm that the right to claim withdrawal from the OOO members deposited by the Gwangju District Court No. 8098 on November 12, 2012 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant AAA Industry Development Co., Ltd. was the Plaintiff. Of the litigation costs, the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant AAA Industry Development Co., Ltd. and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Korea are each borne by the Plaintiff.

On November 12, 2012, the old District Court confirmed that the right to request the withdrawal of the OOO members among the OO members deposited by the Seoul District Court No. 8098 on November 12, 2012 was the Plaintiff.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 20, 2012, the Plaintiff: (a) received a subcontract for part of the above construction from Defendant AAA Industry Development Co., Ltd., which was awarded a contract for the said construction work from the 4th section of Yeongsan and Seomjin Construction Co., Ltd.; and (b) concluded that Defendant AA Industry Development Co., Ltd. and BB Co., Ltd. were directly paid the construction cost OB P Co., Ltd., which the Plaintiff had to receive from Defendant AAA Industry Development Co., Ltd.

B. On September 10, 2012, Defendant Republic of Korea (Spaneuju Tax Office) seized the claim for construction price against Defendant AAA Industry Development Co., Ltd. on the amount claimed by the OOOO on September 10, 2012. BBE Co., Ltd. deposited the deposit amount to Defendant AAA Industry Development Co., Ltd. on November 12, 2012, as well as 30, the subcontractor, who claimed that the deposit was made a direct payment agreement with Defendant AAA Industry Development Co., Ltd. or Defendant AAA Industry Development Co., Ltd., or the subcontractor, and deposited the deposit amount under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act; the deposit amount under the latter part of Article 487 of the Civil Act; the deposit amount under the direct payment agreement between Defendant AAA Industry Development Co., Ltd. and the subcontractor of the said Defendant; and the attachment of Defendant Republic of Korea; and the deposit amount of the construction price OOOOO (OOO amount to be paid to the Plaintiff);