2. The plaintiff's remaining claims against the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the defendant's claims against the Republic of Korea are all dismissed.

3. The part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City is assessed against the Plaintiff, and the part arising between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Republic of Korea is assessed against the Plaintiff.

A. Determination on this safety defense

The plaintiff, who is a company at the city of defendant, accepted 138 square meters of river 138 square meters in Gangnam-gu, Seoul (hereinafter referred to as the "land in this case"), and, for the purpose of the land expropriation compensation (hereinafter referred to as the "compensation"), claims confirmation and payment that the plaintiff has the right to receive deposit money by asserting that the plaintiff has the right to receive deposit money of KRW 11,385,000 deposited in the party members, and that the plaintiff has the right to receive the deposit money. The defendant Si claims the withdrawal of deposit money by proving that the plaintiff is a legitimate owner, and if the deposited public official disposes of the non-acceptance, the plaintiff has prepared the procedure for filing a complaint under the Deposit Act, and thus, directly filing a civil lawsuit against the defendant Si is unlawful because there is no benefit to the protection of rights.

Therefore, as in the case of this case, in a case where a public project operator has deposited unclaimed land for the reason that it is impossible to identify the owner while accepting the unregistered land as in the case of this case, the person claiming the right to claim the payment of deposit money may file a lawsuit against an interested party (e.g., the nominal owner, the land survey title holder, or his heir, etc. on the old land cadastre) or the landowner, and submit a written statement proving the right to claim the payment of deposit money under the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs, which proves the right to claim the payment of deposit money, and submit the final decision in favor of the land owner. Therefore, in a case where a document certifying the right to claim the payment of deposit money cannot be prepared, the right to claim

However, since the defendant City, who is the land expropriation owner, has become extinct due to the above deposit, the obligation to pay the compensation does not file a lawsuit against the defendant City, who is the depositor, and therefore, the part of the plaintiff's claim seeking the compensation against the defendant City

B. Judgment on the merits

The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-1, 3-1, 4, 5-1, 5-2, 5-1, 2-2, 3-2, 5-3, 4-2, 5-5, 6-2, and 7-2, and the whole purport of the pleadings in each of the evidence Nos. 1-1, 2-2, 5-2, 2-3, 3-2, 3-2, 3-2, 2-

(1) In order to compensate for losses while running the housing site development project for a waterway including the instant land, the Defendant, at the Si, perused the land cadastre and a copy of the register of the land cadastre in order to compensate for losses, but the land compensation plan from July 31, 1989 to August 14 of the same year was confirmed to be the unregistered land whose owner on the land cadastre had not been restored, and publicly announced the land compensation plan from July 31, 1989 to August 14 of the same year, and notified the land, among the owners of the instant land and interested parties, whose address or residence cannot be known, by public notice, and then expropriated the land through the adjudication of the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and deposited the compensation amount including the instant land at KRW 1,349,20,00 (the compensation amount for the instant land is KRW 11,385,00,000) as the person to be deposited.

(2) The instant land was originally owned by the Dong, which was the land owned by the deceased Han-cheon, on July 1, 1911. The Dong died on January 6, 1918, and the non-party 1, who is the family heir, inherited the property of Dong-in solely by the Dong-in, and the above Han-ok also died on February 27, 1951, and the Plaintiff, a family heir, was owned by the Plaintiff solely by inheritance of Dong-in’s property, but was not registered due to the failure of Gwangju registry at the time of June 25, 1990, after completing the land expropriation procedure, the registration of ownership was made on October 18, 1990.

C. Therefore, the land of this case is owned by the plaintiff at the time when the land expropriation ruling was made, and the right to receive compensation belongs to the plaintiff.

D. Defendant Republic of Korea asserts the ownership already extinguished since the land category of this case is a river is the category of land and a river is a state-owned. The land category of this case was changed from before the restoration of the cadastral record to a river, and when the land category of this case was lost due to the collapse of water flow, the ownership of the land is extinguished and State-owned. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. However, in the case of a river to which this case’s land is applied mutatis mutandis, a quasi-river, which is not a directly owned river, is disputed between the parties, and the right to use the land is not extinguished as Article 9(3) of the Enforcement Decree of the River Act Article 3 of the River Act does not apply mutatis mutandis (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da26089 delivered on Feb. 14, 1992). Thus, the Defendant’

2. Determination of the Defendant’s Republic of Korea (hereinafter referred to as Defendant’s country)

The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff had the right to receive deposit money of KRW 11,385,00 which was deposited in this court and that the plaintiff had the right to receive deposit money of KRW 11,385,00 which was deposited in this court for the purpose of the payment of compensation. As seen earlier, in case where the public project operator accepted unregistered land and deposited the compensation in a non-existent manner for the reason that the owner cannot be known, the claimant for the right to claim deposit money should not seek confirmation of the right to claim deposit money (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 197Da1454, Jul. 14, 1997).

3. Conclusion

If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is accepted within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim against the defendant and the claim against the defendant's country are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Judges Park Jae-ho