2. The Defendant’s deposit with Suwon District Court 58 was 776,440.

A. On February 4, 1981, the registration of ownership transfer was completed in the Plaintiff’s future on the Ddong-dong (hereinafter “Ddong-dong”) B, 280 square meters (hereinafter “instant site”) and the building on its ground (hereinafter “instant community hall”).

B. In accepting the instant site and the instant community hall (hereinafter collectively referred to as “the instant real estate”), the Defendant deposited KRW 101,523,940 for compensation for losses of the instant community hall, respectively, under Article 40(2)1 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, with the term “Plaintiff,” and the cause of deposit “Refusal of Receipt,” under Article 40(2)1 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor; ① the Suwon District Court’s Sung-nam Branch Branch, 58 in 2016, KRW 76,440,00 for compensation for losses of the instant site; ② the court’s gold No. 70 in 2016.

(hereinafter referred to as “instant deposit”) C.

On November 15, 2017, E representing the Plaintiff filed a claim for withdrawal of the instant deposit with the Sungnam District Court of Suwon District on November 15, 2017.

However, on December 12, 2017, the deposit officer of the said court decided that “The deposit officer with the same name as the Plaintiff, who is the representative of C, requested the withdrawal of the instant deposit on December 4, 2017, and the deposit officer with only formal examination authority, cannot make a substantive judgment as to whether the Plaintiff is the person who has the right to claim the withdrawal of the instant deposit, and thus the Plaintiff’s request for withdrawal is not accepted.”

[Ground of recognition] The plaintiff was the owner of the real estate of this case, and therefore has legitimate authority to receive the deposit money of this case, since there is no dispute, Gap's evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including each number), and the plaintiff's assertion of the purport of the whole pleadings.

Nevertheless, the deposit officer rejected the Plaintiff’s claim for the payment of the instant deposit, and sought confirmation that the Defendant, the depositor, has the right to claim the payment of the deposit against the Plaintiff.

The party's assertion on this safety defense.