A. The registration of ownership transfer was completed in the name of D, E, F, and G (Seoul-gun H; hereinafter “G on the registry”) with respect to each one-fourth share of the 1,035 square meters in the Seo-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “instant land”).

Since November 21, 2013 with respect to D's shares, the transfer of shares was completed in the name of I due to inheritance by consultation division, and with respect to F's shares, the transfer of shares was completed in the name of J, K, L, M, N, N,O, and P as the heir.

B. The Defendant filed an application for expropriation ruling on the shares of G on the registry (hereinafter “instant shares”) among the instant land when implementing Q district urban development projects. The Central Land Expropriation Committee rendered the adjudication on expropriation of the instant shares on May 22, 2014 with the compensation amounting to KRW 44,202,660, and the date of commencement of expropriation as of July 15, 2014.

C. On July 9, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 44,202,660 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Jeonju District Court Decision No. 2288 in 2014, designating “G” as the principal deposit.

Plaintiff

A father G (hereinafter “Plaintiff’s father G”) died on October 1, 2004. Around 2019, R, S, T, U,V, and the Plaintiff, the inheritor, agreed to divide the instant deposit into inherited property to be owned by the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap 1-4 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The instant land asserted by the Plaintiff was registered in title with four persons, including the Plaintiff’s father G, etc. around May 18, 1968. Since the Plaintiff’s father G’s heir agreed to divide the instant deposit into inherited property to be owned by the Plaintiff, one of his heir, the Plaintiff is entitled to the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of the instant deposit. 2) The Defendant’s claim for payment of the instant deposit cannot be readily concluded that the Plaintiff’s father G and his father G are the same person.

B. Whether “G on the register” is the same person as “Plaintiff’s father G”