beta
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2015.10.07 2015가단1521

공탁금출급청구권자확인

Text

1. On November 11, 2014, the Defendant deposited 8,356,70 won with the Seosan Branch of Daejeon District Court No. 2014,1276, and the same court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The former 85 square meters was determined by Da on July 3, 1912, 1912, and the registration of ownership preservation in F was completed on June 1, 1926, and G completed the registration of ownership transfer on the said land on May 9, 1930.

(b) a.

The land indicated in the port was divided into two occasions, and was 142 square meters, 142 square meters, 95 square meters prior to I, and 44 square meters at J roads (hereinafter “instant land”). The instant land was incorporated into the road project (K road construction) section executed by the Defendant (the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office).

C. In order to acquire the instant land, the Defendant publicly notified the determination of a road zone by means of the Daejeon Regional Land Management Office L ( March 16, 2010) and received a disposition of expropriation from the Central Expropriation Committee on September 25, 2014 in accordance with the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

On November 11, 2014, the Defendant deposited the instant land as follows, on the ground that the inmate was unknown according to the above disposition of expropriation on November 11, 2014, on the ground that the deposited person was not identified.

1) The facts that there is no dispute over the recognition of the amount of KRW 1278,60 (No. 1278,90,750) in Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, Seosan Branch of the Daejeon District Court, KRW 2014, KRW 1276, KRW 8,356,70, KRW 200 (No. 5,590, KRW 750)

2. Issues and determination of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party B, and C (hereinafter “Plaintiffs”) are the successors of M (N) and the fact that there are inheritance shares in 3/17, 8/17, and 6/17, respectively, does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, the issue of the instant case is whether the “G” stated as the owner of the instant land is the same as the deceased.

The following circumstances, i.e., evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3, and evidence Nos. 12-1, and 2-2, may be acknowledged by the overall purport of pleadings (such as reference materials attached to the plaintiff's preparatory brief dated June 22, 2015).