공탁금출급청구권확인
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Basic facts
A. The land cadastre No. 2,658 square meters of C forest land in Jung-Eup (hereinafter “Bri”) was indicated as D’s assessment on July 20, 1910, and thereafter the number and land category of the said C land was changed to “E” and “B” respectively.
B. On February 29, 1984, G land was divided into F 2,241 square meters from E’s land. On October 6, 1984, G land was subdivided from F’s land and became one thousand and six hundred thousand square meters before H as of October 6, 1984 (hereinafter “instant land”).
C. The Defendant deposited KRW 2,544,00 for the owner on February 27, 2015, on the ground that the owner of the instant land could not be known while accepting the instant land as the implementer of the IB project (IB).
(hereinafter referred to as “instant deposit”) D.
The instant land was originally unregistered, but the registration of ownership preservation was completed on March 3, 2015 in the Defendant’s name after the expropriation.
[Ground of recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1-4 (including a Serial number), and the fact-finding results on the Jeonju District Court's branch court's branch court's support, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Since the Plaintiff’s assertion purchased the instant land from J, a large Arabic, it occupied the said land with the intention to own it for at least 20 years from December 13, 198 to December 13, 198, acquisition by prescription was completed.
Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to claim the payment of the instant deposit.
3. Where real estate subject to the obligation to transfer ownership is expropriated and the obligation to transfer ownership becomes impossible, the claimant for registration can seek the return of the compensation paid to the person liable for registration by exercising the right to claim against the person liable for registration, or seek the transfer of the right to claim the compensation for expropriation acquired by the person liable for registration, not the right to claim the compensation for expropriation itself
(Supreme Court Decision 95Da56910 delivered on October 29, 1996). According to the above facts and legal principles, the Plaintiff’s land in this case, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion.