beta
Text
1. The defendant deposited by the Ulsan District Court No. 1562 on April 14, 2008 28 28,951,650 won.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. With respect to the 150 square meters prior to the subdivision B, Gyeong-gun, Ulsan-gun, the land before subdivision, the entry is made in the land cadastre and register on August 19, 1964, for reasons of the completion of repayment on December 31, 1958.
B. The 150 square meters prior to B is divided into 131 square meters prior to B on May 7, 1976 and 19 square meters prior to E, and the 19 square meters prior to B constituted 63 square meters prior to Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Incheon-gu, Seoul-do (hereinafter “instant real estate”) due to land category change, administrative district jurisdiction change, etc.
C. On April 19, 2007, the Defendant publicly announced the decision of a road zone (revision) for the purpose of expanding the instant real estate to GG entry, and subsequently, did not know the recipient of the compensation for expropriation, on April 14, 2008 under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor, deposited KRW 28,951,650 as the court No. 1562 as to the instant real estate under the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation Therefor. On April 18, 2008, the Defendant deposited KRW 28,951,650 as the court No. 3469 as to the said
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. In the real estate register of this case, C, whose domicile covers Dong-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Ulsan-gun, is indicated as the owner, and it is determined whether the defendant's right to claim the withdrawal of the deposited money for expropriation belongs to the plaintiff depending on whether C and the same person as C were the owner of the real estate of this case.
In light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff and the fact-finding results with respect to the North-gu Office of Ulsan Metropolitan City in Ulsan Metropolitan City, it is reasonable to view that C as the real estate owner of this case and the Plaintiff as the same person.
① The names of C and the Plaintiff, the owner of the instant real estate, are the same.
② The Plaintiff’s first-class living record book (A11) contains the Plaintiff’s address as “H of Ulsan-gun,” and was prepared around 1961 (short-term 4294).