[소유권확인·공탁물수령권자확인][공2007.3.15.(270),435]
[1] In a lawsuit for confirmation, the interest of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights and the standing for defendant
[2] In a case where a project operator deposits compensation pursuant to Article 40 (2) 1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects, whether there is a benefit to file a lawsuit seeking confirmation of the right to deposit funds from a deposit official, who is the other party to the project operator, even if the right to deposit funds is the legitimate right to deposit funds (affirmative)
[1] In a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment of confirmation is the most effective means to eliminate the plaintiff's rights or legal status in danger and danger. Thus, in a lawsuit for confirmation of confirmation, a person who causes or is likely to cause apprehension and danger in the plaintiff's rights or legal status has the qualification as the defendant.
[2] In case where a person entitled to the compensation is unable to receive the compensation due to unknown address, 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, a final judgment on the identity, etc. between private persons is not possible because the repayment deposit system is essentially intended to coordinate legal relations between private persons, and since the deposit public official has a formal examination right, the identity, etc. between the person entitled to the deposit and the person claiming the right to receive the compensation cannot be determined. This cannot be resolved through objection to the disposition of the deposit public official or objection thereto, which is the most well known to the depositor. Even if the person is the person entitled to the deposit or the right to receive the deposit, seeking the payment of the deposit through a civil lawsuit directly against the State is not permitted in principle. In light of the fact that it is not permitted to seek the payment of the deposit from the deposit official, even if the person entitled to the deposit is the right to receive the deposit, the other party to seek the lawsuit.
[1] Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act / [2] Article 40 (2) 1 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, Article 30 subparagraph 2 of the Rules on the Management of Deposit Affairs, Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act
[1] Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3557) / [2] Supreme Court Decision 91Da15447 delivered on July 12, 1991 (Gong191Ha, 2157)
Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Jeong, Attorneys Park Jong-chul et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)
Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Kim Jae-hwan, Counsel for defendant-appellant)
Seoul High Court Decision 2006Na20704, 20711 decided September 21, 2006
The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.
The grounds of appeal are examined.
1. In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be a benefit of confirmation as a requirement for protection of rights, and the benefit of confirmation is recognized when a judgment of confirmation is the most effective means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger. Thus, in a lawsuit for confirmation, a person who causes or is likely to cause apprehension and danger in the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status has the eligibility as the Defendant.
2. As in this case, in case where a project operator deposited 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 the person entitled to the compensation falls under the time when the person entitled to the compensation is unable to receive it due to unknown address, if the project operator deposited compensation, the payment deposit system is to coordinate legal relations between private persons in essence, and the deposit official has a formal examination right. Since the deposit official has a formal examination right, the identity, etc. between the person entitled to the deposit and the person claiming the right to receive the compensation cannot be determined ultimately. This cannot be resolved through objection to the disposition of the deposit official or objection thereto, which is the most well known by the deposit official, and even if the person is the person entitled to the deposit or the lawful right to receive the deposit, it is not allowed in principle to seek the payment of the deposit by a civil lawsuit directly against the State (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da1547, Jul. 12, 191). 200>
The judgment of the court below to the same purport is just, and there is no violation of law as alleged in the grounds of appeal.
3. Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Park Si-hwan (Presiding Justice)