[공탁금출급청구권자확인] 확정[각공2018하,468]
In a case where the Corporation attempted to pay compensation in connection with the adjudication on expropriation of land to be incorporated into the comprehensive agricultural development project, but the land owner’s address and whereabouts are unknown, and as the deposited person was deposited with the deposited person as a right holder in the register pursuant to Article 40(2)1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works and Article 487 of the Civil Act, and Article 487 of the Civil Act, the case holding that, in a case where the clan C claimed confirmation of the right to claim payment of deposit money against the Corporation, asserting that he is the right holder of the right to claim payment of deposit money, as long as the title trust is terminated, the above lawsuit is not a valid and appropriate method
In accordance with Article 40(2)1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects and Article 487 of the Civil Act, the Corporation intended to pay compensation in relation to the adjudication of expropriation of land to be incorporated into the comprehensive agricultural development project, but on the ground that the address and location of the landowner cannot be known, the Corporation deposited the deposited person with the rights holder in the register of the register, and the clan Byung deposited the deposited person with the deposited person as the rights holder in the register of the register. As long as the title trust is terminated, the land to be expropriated is the land the title of which is the land the title trust with the Eul, and
C. The case holding that the lawsuit is not a valid and appropriate means for dispute resolution, and thus there is no benefit of confirmation because it is not a valid and appropriate means for dispute resolution. D's claim for confirmation of the right to request deposit transfer against Eul's heir, and instead, Eul's heir cannot request deposit transfer, claiming the declaration of the right to claim deposit transfer and notification of the transfer of the right to claim deposit transfer, by exercising the right to claim compensation against Eul's heir for non-performance of the right to claim deposit transfer transfer registration.
Article 40(2)1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects; Article 487 of the Civil Act
Of the types of pre-stigious pacifics, pacifics, pacifies
Korea Rural Community Corporation
April 12, 2018
1. The instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
On August 9, 2012, the Defendant’s right to claim a deposit of KRW 4,747,00 deposited by the Jeonju District Court No. 2621 in 2012 is confirmed as the Plaintiff.
1. Facts of recognition;
A. A. The area of a forest of 14,876 square meters in a forest ( Address 1 omitted) located in Jeonju-gun (hereinafter “the forest before the division”) was divided in around 2010, and was 10,220 square meters in a forest of 10,220 square meters in a forest of 2,281 square meters in a forest of 2,281 square meters ( Address 2 omitted), ( Address 4 omitted), forest of 1,686 square meters in a forest of 59 square meters in a forest of 59 square meters in a forest of 630 square meters in a forest of 630 square meters in a forest of 6
B. The Defendant, based on Article 40(2)1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (Article 487 of the Civil Act) on August 9, 2012, intended to pay KRW 4,747,00 to the land owner on the ground that ( Address 6 omitted) purchased 1/4 shares of forest land of KRW 630 square meters and used 1/4 shares of forest land of KRW 1,685 square meters among forest land ( Address 1 omitted), but on the ground that the land owner’s address and location cannot be known, deposited KRW 4,747,00 as the Nonparty ( Address 7 omitted) who is a share holder of the register of each of the above land (Article 487 of the Civil Act).
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
(a) consider ex officio;
B. In the case of deposit of absolute uncertainty that is not clearly identified by the person who is claiming the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the person who is the true compensation
C. In addition, in cases where a person entitled to the compensation is unable to receive the compensation because his/her address is unknown, and the project operator deposited the compensation pursuant to Article 40(2)1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects on the ground that it falls under the case where the person entitled to the compensation is unable to receive the compensation, even if the person entitled to the right to the deposit is the legitimate holder of the right to the deposit, the person who is refused to pay the deposit from the deposit official is also entitled to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to the deposit payment with the project operator as the other party to remove the apprehension and danger of the legal status (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68650, 6867, Feb. 9, 207, etc.). However, this case cannot be directly applied to this case as a legal principle
D. The deposit of this case can be deemed as a kind of deposit for repayment. The plaintiff claims that the non-party's heir be entitled to receive the deposit so long as the title trust is terminated as the land which is the land under a title trust with the non-party. In such a case, the plaintiff is not entitled to claim the confirmation of the right to claim the payment of deposit against the non-party's heir, who is not the depositer, (see Supreme Court Decision 2005Da67476, Aug. 25, 2006, etc.). The plaintiff may obtain the satisfaction of the right by exercising the right to claim the non-party's heir against the non-party's heir for the reason that the right to claim the transfer of ownership is impossible, and by exercising the right to claim the transfer of ownership against the non-party's heir, notify the transfer of the right to claim the payment of deposit and the notification of the transfer of the right
E. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit in this case is unlawful because it is not an effective and appropriate means to resolve the dispute.
3. Conclusion
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is unlawful and dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.
Justices Kim Tae-hun
(1) The possibility of refusing to pay the deposit may not be ruled out in the event that the Plaintiff claims a payment of deposit after the judgment accepting such claim becomes final and conclusive. In such a case, the Plaintiff may be required to obtain a judgment from the Nonparty on the fact that the Nonparty’s heir is the Nonparty’s right to claim a payment of deposit of this case in accordance with the legal principles set forth in the foregoing Paragraph (c) above. However, the previous Jeju District Court Decision 2013Gadan47394, which was submitted with the evidence No. 3, stated in detail the fact that the Nonparty held a title trust on the portion of 1/4 of the forest land before the division and the details of the Nonparty’s heir on the fact that the Nonparty made a payment of deposit of deposit of this case