공탁금출급청구권양도등 청구의 소
1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant (Appointed Party).
3...
1. The reasoning for the court’s explanation on this part of the underlying facts is as stated in Paragraph 1 of the judgment of the first instance, except for the dismissal of the pertinent part as follows. Thus, this part is cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
From the 2nd to the 8th 10th am as follows. A. The plaintiff is a clan that jointly sets up F, and the defendant (appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "defendant") is the defendant.
) The Appointor C, D, and E is the mother of the Appointor C, D, and E (hereinafter referred to as the “Defendants, etc.”) together with the Appointor C, D, and E
) The plaintiff is a member of the family council.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Defendant, etc. had the duty to transfer ownership to the Plaintiff regarding the shares of the Defendant, etc. among the instant land as the relevant judgment became final and conclusive, but the obligation to transfer ownership was impossible due to the expropriation of the instant land into the Chungcheong North Korea Development Corporation. The Defendant, etc. received compensation in return for the share of ownership among the instant land. 2) Since the Plaintiff had the right to claim the compensation received by the Defendant, etc., the Defendant, etc. is obligated to return the said compensation to the Plaintiff.
B. 1) In a case where the obligation to transfer the ownership on the ground of the completion of the acquisition by prescription becomes impossible due to the expropriation of the land, the claimant for the registration of transfer of ownership shall be deemed to be entitled to claim the return of the compensation paid as compensation for the said land as the exercise of the so-called right to claim the transfer of ownership (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da25025, Dec. 9, 1994). For this purpose, the purchaser of prescription should have claimed the right to claim the registration on the ground that the period of acquisition by possession of real estate against the title holder has expired before the performance is impossible, or on the ground that the period of acquisition expires (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 94Da43825, Dec. 10, 1996).