1. Of the KRW 22,306,00 deposited by the Defendant with the Gwangju District Court No. 10430 on December 23, 2010, Plaintiff A shall be KRW 3,936,355.

1. Basic facts

A. The registration of preservation of ownership was completed on April 19, 1915 by K having his domicile in J on the land cadastre of Gwangju Northern-gu I (hereinafter “instant land”) and on March 23, 1960 in the name of K having his domicile in the Mining-gun L, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed.

B. On December 23, 2010, the Defendant admitted the instant land pursuant to Article 8(1)2 of the Act on Special Measures for the Compensation, etc. for Land Incorporated into the River, and deposited KRW 22,306,00 as the depositee under the Gwangju District Court No. 10430 on December 23, 2010 on the ground that K recorded as the owner in the entire registration certificate is unknown.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, and Eul evidence 6

2. The parties' assertion

A. K indicated as the owner on the land cadastre and the complete certificate of the registered matters of this case’s assertion is the Plaintiff’s trial records and the other Plaintiffs’ high-help net M (hereinafter “net M”). N, who was N, due to the death of the network M, succeeded to the land of this case, but N, N, a son, succeeded to the land of this case. As the Plaintiffs jointly inherited the land of this case due to the death of the networkO, the Plaintiffs jointly succeeded to the land of this case, the Plaintiffs have the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case by their respective shares of inheritance.

B. The Defendant’s assertion is inconsistent with the address of K, the owner on the entire certificate of the registered matters of the instant land, and as such, the Plaintiff’s domicile is difficult to view as the heir of K.

3. In addition, according to the above fact-finding evidence No. 2-1, K’s domicile as the owner of the land of this case is “mining group L” on the entire registration certificate, while the network M’’ domicile is recognized as a “mining group P,” but it is recognized as different facts, and each fact-finding with respect to Gap’s evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including the serial number) and non-children’s domicile are acknowledged as being based on the whole purport of the pleadings as a whole.