Plaintiff (Law Firm Cheongn, Attorneys Lee Dong-soo, Counsel for plaintiff-appellant)

Korea Rail Network Authority (Law Firm Sejong, Attorneys Han-soo et al., Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

November 9, 2017

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

On October 16, 2014, Nonparty ○○2 Housing Redevelopment Project Association confirmed that the Plaintiff has the right to claim payment of KRW 158,719,830 deposited by the Busan District Court Branch Branch of the Dong Branch of the District Court in 2014.

1. Basic facts

A. On June 8, 2009, from Busan Shipping Daegu ○○○○, 933-7, 322 square meters, the same 933-90 square meters and 207 square meters are divided, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on September 2, 2010 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share ownership on the ground of expropriation on August 25, 2010.

B. Meanwhile, from the same 933-15 square meters to the same 384 square meters, the same 933-91 square meters was divided on June 8, 2009, and the Defendant completed the registration of ownership transfer on February 14, 201 with respect to the Plaintiff’s share ownership on the ground of an agreement on land for public use on February 11, 201.

C. On each of the above lands before subdivision, there was a ground building owned by the Plaintiff on both sides. The Defendant intended to acquire only two remaining 933-7 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) and 933-15 square meters and 316 square meters of each of the above lands (hereinafter “instant land”). However, on August 24, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the remainder of the building cannot operate a factory and demanded the Plaintiff to acquire the entire building by claiming that it would not be possible, and deposited KRW 233,084,00 according to the adjudication of expropriation due to the expropriation of the entire building, office, fence, facility, machinery removal cost, business loss, etc. (hereinafter “instant expropriation compensation”).

D. After that, the Busan District Court: (a) filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff for delivery of a building on the instant land (hereinafter “instant building”); and (b) conciliation was concluded on August 18, 2014; (c) on October 16, 2014, the deposited person was either the Plaintiff or the Defendant and deposited KRW 158,719,830 (hereinafter “the instant building”) totaling KRW 158,719,830 (the instant building was KRW 74,119,830 + the installation and relocation cost of the instant building + KRW 84,60,000) with the Busan District Court’s branch branch branch office located as the Plaintiff or the Defendant on October 16, 2014 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

E. Meanwhile, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on November 27, 2014 against the Plaintiff on the ground that the instant building and the instant building were owned by the Defendant and that the instant building were owned by the Defendant and that the instant building was owned by the Busan District Court 2014Kadan202181, which sought delivery. The Defendant was sentenced to a ruling dismissing the Defendant’s claim on November 27, 2014 on the ground that the instant compensation for expropriation was capable of allowing the Plaintiff to remove the building, and that it did not acquire the ownership of the said building, and the appeal and the final appeal were dismissed and finalized (hereinafter “related judgment”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 4 evidence (including branch numbers in case of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 to 9 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff's assertion

After the land expropriation compensation in this case, the Plaintiff moved all of the machinery facilities in this case to another place, and subsequently relocated them after reconstruction. Since the non-party partnership should move the machinery facilities in the building again to the wind of accepting the building, the deposit money in this case should be reverted to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

According to the purport of each entry and image of evidence Nos. 5 through 7, 16, 20 through 23, 32, 34, 63, and 10 evidence Nos. 10, and the Nonparty’s testimony and arguments, the part corresponding to the track site among the previous buildings during the period from 2010 to 2011 (207m2, 93-90, 933-91, 68m2, 933-91, and 933-15m2, 316m2, from the division of the land of this case) can be acknowledged that the building of this case was demolished on the side of the remaining parts of the previous building located on the land of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge that the building of this case was lost identical to the building of this case solely with the above facts and evidence submitted.

Furthermore, even according to the plaintiff's assertion, the machinery, etc. located in the building of this case was moved back to another place at the time of the above removal, and considering the fact that the defendant, at the time, intended to expropriate only part of the existing building, provided compensation for the whole building and machinery, etc. at the request of the plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the compensation required for the relocation of the building of this case or the machinery has already been completed, and it is difficult to conclude that the liability for compensation for the plaintiff has newly occurred because the above machinery was brought into the building of this case or the non-party association had taken over it again, or the non-party association had taken over it again, and there is no proof to prove otherwise (as long as the compensation was completed, it shall not be deemed that the ownership of the building of this case was not transferred to the defendant in the related judgment).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

Designation of Quantities of Judges

(1) Unlike ordinary compensation for relocation, the Plaintiff’s assertion is possible only when the premise that the instant compensation for expropriation may be reconstructed a building on the relevant site or brought a machine into the building subject to expropriation is premised, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. If not, the subject of expropriation is able to temporarily remove the building or temporarily remove the movable property, and then re-enter it into the building and demand compensation to a third party, etc., so such special circumstance should exist in order to recognize it.