A. On November 27, 1999, the Plaintiffs succeeded to the deceased’s property in proportion to Plaintiff A’s 3/9 shares, Plaintiff B, C, and D’s shares, respectively, 2/9 shares.

B. On December 3, 1999, the Defendant deposited KRW 266,725,450, 267, 199, 267, 267, 300, 300,000,000,000 won, which was owned by the Plaintiffs to use for national defense and military business as stipulated in Article 3 of the former Land Expropriation Act, by obtaining a ruling of expropriation from the Central Land Expropriation Committee of the Republic of Korea, which was located on the part of the Plaintiffs, for the purpose of using the national defense and military business. The Defendant deposited KRW 747,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,0000,000,000,000,000,000

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 through 8 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the plaintiffs as the heir to the deceased E, who was the depositee, and KRW 908,481 out of KRW 2,725,450 deposited by the defendant as the Goyang-si District Court in 1999, KRW 605,654, and KRW 605,654 to the plaintiff Eul, and KRW 605,654 to the plaintiff Eul, respectively, and KRW 605,654 to the plaintiff Eul, respectively, and KRW 41,474,74,79, and KRW 13,824,532 to the plaintiff Gap, KRW 9,216,532 to the plaintiff, KRW 216,532 to the plaintiff Eul, and KRW 605,654 to the plaintiff Eul.

Furthermore, seeking confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposited goods against the Defendant, the depositor, becomes the most effective and appropriate means for the Plaintiffs, who are the applicants for the return of deposited goods, to confirm the substantial legal relationship of their true successors. The Plaintiffs, the legitimate right to claim the return of deposited goods, who are the legitimate right to claim the return of deposited goods, are also entitled to bring the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to claim the return of deposited goods against the Defendant

Supreme Court Decision 201 April 1, 2014