[2] In the event of dispute over the attribution of a claim, whether there is a benefit to seek confirmation that the claim belongs to himself/herself (affirmative)

[3] Whether it is not permissible in itself to seek confirmation that the right to claim compensation for expropriation belongs to a person who owns a real estate at the time of expropriation on the ground that the person claiming the right to claim registration has accepted the real estate for the purpose of expropriation (affirmative)

[2] Where two or more persons assert that one claim is a creditor, a claim seeking confirmation against the other party about the attribution of the claim that one party belongs to himself/herself is the benefit of such confirmation.

[3] In a case where the claimant as the claimant for registration seeks confirmation of the attribution of the claim for expropriation compensation against the nominal owner at the time of expropriation on the ground that the real estate was expropriated for the purpose of the obligation to transfer ownership, the claim for expropriation compensation does not belong to the claimant as the claimant for registration, even if the alleged fact is recognized, and it is obvious that the allegation itself does not have any reason.

On the first ground for appeal

In a case where a real estate which is the object of the obligation to register ownership is expropriated with a third party, the obligation to register ownership has become impossible. Accordingly, the judgment of the court below that rejected all of the plaintiff's claim of this case is just, and the decision of the court below that rejected the plaintiff's claim of this case is with respect to the case where the obligation to register became impossible and the obligor restores the ownership again, and the purport is not to order the registration of ownership transfer even when the obligation to register ownership is impossible, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the impossibility of performance of the right to claim ownership transfer registration such as theory of lawsuit, and there is no reason to challenge this issue.

With respect to the second and fifth points

The Plaintiff’s claim for the registration of this case does not have to examine whether there was an agreement on the intermediate omission registration claimed by the Plaintiff or whether the acquisition by prescription has been completed, on the grounds that it does not have any reason to view the Plaintiff’s claim itself, and therefore, the lower court did not have any reason to criticize that the lower court did not recognize the agreement on the intermediate omission registration or the acquisition by prescription, such as the theory of lawsuit, and further

In addition, considering the contents and reasons of the judgment below's purport, it is clear that the court below rejected the plaintiff's claim seeking the implementation of the procedure for ownership transfer registration. Therefore, there is no reason to deny the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below cannot be said to be erroneous as the theory of lawsuit, and all arguments are without merit.

On the third ground for appeal

Even if the right to claim for registration, as alleged by the Plaintiff, is recognized, the person liable for registration can demand the return of the compensation paid by the person liable for registration by exercising the right to claim for the compensation for expropriation, or seek the transfer of the right to claim for expropriation, and the right to claim for the compensation for expropriation itself cannot be deemed to belong to the person liable for registration. The Supreme Court Decision 94Da25025 Decided December 9, 1994 cited by the person liable for registration is related to the case in which the person liable for registration

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is not erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the claim for compensation such as the theory of lawsuit, or in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the reversion of the right to compensation deposited, or in the violation of the rules of evidence. Therefore,

On the fourth ground

In a case where two or more persons claim that one of them are creditors with respect to one claim, one of the parties is the benefit of confirmation (see Supreme Court Decision 87Meu269, Sept. 27, 198). Thus, the court below's rejection of the benefit of confirmation is erroneous, or the plaintiff's claim that the claim for expropriation compensation belongs to the plaintiff, based on the plaintiff's assertion, is clearly without merit. Meanwhile, since the court below dismissed the plaintiff's appeal against the first instance court which dismissed the claim for confirmation, it cannot be deemed that the above error of law of the court below affected the conclusion of the judgment. The argument is without merit.

Therefore, the appeal is dismissed, and all costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Kim Jong-soo (Presiding Justice)