logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.10.05 2016가단19718
공탁출급청구권 확인의 소
Text

1. All of the instant lawsuits are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff (appointed party).

Reasons

1. (1) The network was owned by the owner of each real estate listed in Attachment 1 and 2, and the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties are the successors of D.

(2) On September 16, 2015, the land indicated in attached Table 1 was transferred to Gyeonggi-do through the expropriation of land by the Korea Water Resources Corporation, and the said Corporation deposited KRW 19,058,550 as compensation for losses on the said real estate as the deposited person on the ground that the person entitled to compensation was unable to know his/her resident registration address and present domicile. The said Corporation deposited KRW 19,058,550 as compensation for losses on the said real estate as the deposit money on February 10, 2012.

(3) On September 16, 2015, the land indicated in attached Form 2 was transferred to Gyeonggi-do through the expropriation of land at Macheon-si. On September 16, 2015, the State District Court deposited KRW 114,790,000 as compensation for the said real estate as a deposit on the ground that the person entitled to the compensation was unable to know the resident registration address and present location, and deposited KRW 114,790,000 as compensation for the said real estate as a deposit on August 5, 2015.

(4) After the death of D, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) managed all the land by filing a lawsuit claiming removal of the building against an illegal occupant, and even if taxes were paid, the Korea Water Resources Corporation and Sincheon-si filed the said deposit on the ground that D, the owner of the instant land, the designated party, and the deceased D, the designated party, were not the same person, and thus, sought a judgment as stated in the purport of the claim.

2. (1) In a lawsuit for confirmation, there must be the 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 and appropriate means to eliminate the Plaintiff’s rights or legal status in danger and danger. As such, 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 for the Defendant.

(2) A person entitled to compensation as in the instant case shall be registered as a resident.

arrow