공탁금출급청구권 확인
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The plaintiff (appointed party)'s claim is dismissed.
2. The total cost of the lawsuit.
1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for adding the judgment of the court of first instance between 5, 15 and 16 of the judgment of the court of first instance, as stated in the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. In addition, even if G, a high-ranking division of the plaintiffs, purchased each of the instant real estate from F, or the plaintiffs were assumed to have completed the prescription period for the acquisition of possession of each of the instant real estate on March 31, 1972, the plaintiffs are not entitled to acquire ownership, but rights to claim the transfer of ownership, and even if each of the instant real estate is expropriated, the right to claim the expropriation belongs to F's heir, not the plaintiffs, and the plaintiffs can claim the transfer of the right to claim the transfer of the right to claim the expropriation or the return of the compensation for expropriation against F's heir, who is the transferor, after the purchase of each of the instant real estate in this case, after the purchase of the instant real estate, but the right to claim the expropriation of the deposited compensation cannot be claimed as the plaintiffs (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 95Da56910, Oct. 29, 196; 95Da42905, Dec. 5, 1995).
3. In conclusion, the claim of this case by the plaintiff and the designated parties is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the joint plaintiffs of the first instance appointed A as the designated party at the time of the trial, it is decided to modify the judgment of the first instance as stated in Paragraph 1 of the disposition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.