[Defendant-Appellant] Defendant 1

Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff

1. Korea Land and Housing Corporation;

Seongbuk-gu Seoul Metropolitan City 217 (Donge-dong)

The Representative's Second Second Director

2. Korea;

The Minister of Justice of the Republic of Korea

[Defendant-Appellant] Plaintiff 1

Attorney Seo-ju, Lee Jae-in

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Of KRW 14, 399, 098, and 000, each corresponding amount in the column of "amount claimed" among the details of claims by plaintiff in the attached Form [Omission]

It is confirmed that the claim for payment of the deposit equivalent to the cost is against each of the plaintiffs.

A. On April 9, 1981, each registration of ownership transfer was completed on October 3, 1972 in the name of Pulcheon Sacheon Sacheon Co., Ltd., 32, 865m of forest land in Yangju-si, 32, 32- 3, 29, 670m of forest land in Yangju-si, 39, 865m of Yangju-si, and 670m of square (hereinafter referred to as "each land of this case").

B. The Seoul High Court accepted the above application and rendered a provisional injunction against provisional injunction against the above claim for expropriation compensation (hereinafter “instant provisional injunction order”) on April 8, 2009. The Seoul High Court accepted the above provisional injunction against the above provisional injunction against the above claim for expropriation compensation (hereinafter “instant provisional injunction order”).

C. The defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation intended to expropriate each of the lands in this case for the housing site development project in Yang-ju District Land and Housing Corporation, which was publicly announced, and intended to pay 14,389,09,098,000 won of the compensation for expropriation. However, as the payment was prohibited due to the provisional disposition decision of this case, it was stated on April 20, 2009 that the deposited person was 1655, "in the wind, wind, wind, wind, wind, wind, wind, or wind, wind, wind, wind, etc.," and "B" was 14,389,09,000 won of the above compensation for expropriation, but it was not possible to identify the deposited person after being served with the written decision of provisional disposition of this case, and the deposit money of each of the above 10,90,000 won of the compensation money of this case under Article 40 (2) 2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects.

D. On April 21, 2009, Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation expropriated each of the instant land in accordance with the adjudication of the Central Land and Housing Corporation.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. The plaintiffs' assertion

양주시 율정동 산32 임야 및 양주시 율정동 산33 임야는 일제 강점기에 망 임○○ , 망 임◎◎, 망 임●●, 망 임▲▲ 4인 ( 이하 ' 망인들 ' 이라 한다 ) 의 명의로 사정된 각 토지로서 망인들의 소유였는데, 양주시 율정동 산32 임야에서 이 사건 각 토지가 분할되었다. 그리고 망인들이 사망함에 따라 피상속인인 원고들이 이 사건 각 토지 중 별지 원고별 청구금액 내역 중 ' 상속지분 ' 란 각 해당 기재와 같은 각 지분을 공동상속하였는바, 풍천임씨 동지공파종중 또는 풍천임씨소간공파종중은 이 사건 각 토지의 진정한 소유자가 아니다. 따라서 이 사건 공탁금에 관한 출급청구권은 이 사건 각 토지의 진정한 소유권자인 원고들에게 귀속되어야 하므로, 이 사건 공탁금 중 일부인 999, 998, 870원을 원고들의 위 각 상속지분에 따라 배분한 별지 원고별 청구금액 내역 중 ' 청구액 ' 란 기재 각 해당 금원 상당의 각 해당 공탁금출급청구권이 각 해당 원고들에게 있다는 확인을 구한다 .

3. Determination as to the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants

A. Legal doctrine 1) In a lawsuit seeking confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for the protection of rights. The benefit of confirmation is recognized only when it is the most effective and appropriate means for the defendant to receive a confirmation judgment against the defendant. Thus, the defendant in a lawsuit seeking confirmation has a benefit of confirmation against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997, etc.) and there is a benefit of confirmation against the defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997, etc.). Since the defendant is determined formally by the statement of the deposit, it is not possible for the defendant to exercise his right of claim for withdrawal without being designated as the creditor even if it is determined by the substantive law. In addition, even if a third party, who is not the person to receive the deposit, has received a judgment against the above third party to claim for withdrawal of deposited goods (see Supreme Court Decision 200Da31570 delivered on May 27, 2019).

B. Determination

Comprehensively taking account of the above facts, Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation’s deposit of KRW 14,389,09,098,000 for each of the lands in this case constitutes a deposit for repayment of the relative non-refluence designated by Defendant Korea Land and Housing Corporation as “the depositor is either Pungcheon-si, East-si, or Pungcheon-si, Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si, Sacheon-si.

Article 40 (2) 2 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, which is the basis for the deposit of the above deposit. However, in light of the method and contents of entry in the column of deposit and the cause of deposit, the deposit of this case constitutes a deposit of relative uncertainty specified relatively at the creditor, and it cannot be said that the deposit of this case constitutes an absolute deposit without the creditor's identity; according to the above legal principles, the plaintiffs, who are not the parties to the above deposit, cannot claim the return of this case's deposit, even if they are confirmed by the lawsuit of this case that the right to claim payment of this case is against the plaintiffs, and the defendants cannot claim the return of this case's deposit of this case's money without the legal interest in the deposit of this case (the defendant Korea is merely a third party without interest in the deposit of this case). Thus, the plaintiffs' right to claim the return of this case's real interest in the land of this case against the plaintiffs as the right to claim the return of the deposit of this case.

4. Conclusion

Therefore, since all of the plaintiffs' lawsuits against the defendants are unlawful, it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

Judge Cho Jae-han

Judges Gender Equality Beneficiary

Newly Inserted by Presidential Decree No. 2010, Dec. 21