공탁금 출급청구권 확인
1. The lawsuit of an independent party intervenor shall be dismissed;
2. The Defendant’s District Court Decision No. 1799 dated April 29, 2011 was Jibu District Court No. 2011.
1. Basic facts
A. On February 3, 1979, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of “A Sejong Association” on February 3, 1979 with respect to the land of 10,585 square meters in Gyeonggi-do, Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant land”).
Since then, the registered titleholders of the instant land were changed to “A” on July 31, 1995, to “A Class A” on September 29, 2010, to “A Class A” and “A” on January 24, 2011.
B. The instant land had been transferred to the Republic of Korea for land expropriation on May 18, 201, and the registration titleholder of the instant land was “A” at the time of the said land expropriation.
C. On April 29, 2011, Korea deposited KRW 221,771,630 in the sum of KRW 212,758,500 and land usage fees of KRW 9,013,130, and KRW 221,771,630 of the instant land expropriation compensation as the District Court of Jung-gu in 201.
(hereinafter “instant deposit”). The key contents indicated in the instant deposit document are as follows.
The underlying Acts and subordinate statutes for deposit: The name of the person under whose name the contract is made under Article 40 (2) 1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter referred to as the "Public Works Act"): The address of the person under whose name the contract is made under Class A: The registration number of the person under whose name the contract is made under subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the Public Works Act: The depositr intends to pay the land of this case, which is owned by the person under whose name the contract is to be used for national defense and military purposes as provided under subparagraph 1 of Article 4 of the Public Works Act, with the adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee,
D. On November 23, 2011, the Plaintiff filed a claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit with a deposit official with the Jung-gu District Court on the ground that “A’s failure to repair the instant deposit was lawful on the grounds that the Plaintiff’s failure to repair the instant deposit was not clearly identified, regardless of whether the form of the form of the form of the form of the form of the form of the form of the form of the form of the race, on the grounds that
District Court. ...