공탁금출급권자확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The land category was changed to a road on October 20, 206, and the land category was changed to a 1,408 square meters from D forest land (hereinafter “forest land prior to the instant partition”) in Gyeongsan-si. The land register of the forest land prior to the instant partition was written on September 10, 191 by stating that “Edong” was subject to the assessment on September 10, 191.
B. The instant land was incorporated into the F construction section (Seoul Dong-gu Gdong-gu from Gdong-gu to Hriju-si), and the Defendant expropriated the said land upon the adjudication of the Central Land Expropriation Committee.
C. On October 12, 2005, the Defendant deposited KRW 20,12940 of the land of this case as “unexploied person” pursuant to Article 40(2)2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, on the ground that the Plaintiff could not know the lawful owner of the land of this case unregistered by the Daegu District Court Decision 2005No. 8361, Oct. 12, 2005, and deposited KRW 20,12940 of the compensation money under the name of the Republic of Korea on January 17, 2006.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 3, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 6, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on this safety defense
A. As to the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation against the Defendant on the premise that the Plaintiff is the owner of the land of this case, the Defendant did not have the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case, and even if the Plaintiff was rendered a confirmation judgment that the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case was the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff cannot claim the payment of the deposit of this case. Thus, the lawsuit of this case seeking confirmation against the Defendant, who is the depositor, that the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case was the Plaintiff, is unlawful as there is no benefit of lawsuit.
B. The creditor is specified in our deposit system or at least the creditor.