logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.08.11 2015가단19541
공탁출급청구권확인(불확지공탁)
Text

1. On April 23, 2015, the Defendant deposited with the Daegu District Court No. 3046, the Daegu District Court on 2015, not more than B, 102§³.

Reasons

1. The fact of recognition / [1] The Defendant admitted the area of 102 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) before Si/Ycheon-si for the resident-Ycheon Highway Project.

The land cadastre column of this case is written “C”, and the address column is unfolded.

On April 23, 2015, the Defendant deposited KRW 4,539,000 as the Daegu District Court No. 3046 on April 23, 2015, on the ground that the instant land was unregistered and the address of its owner was omitted.

[2] The 843 square meters prior to Yongcheon-si was divided into March 27, 1937 and E through 4. The land cadastre closed at the 843 square meters prior to Youngcheon-si D, Youngcheon-si, indicated that the ownership was transferred to F G and C in sequence from the land developer.

Since the division, the land cadastre closed from H 723 square meters before H is indicated as the defendant's ownership has been transferred from C.

[3] The father of the Plaintiff is C, and he is G, and the permanent domicile is Youngcheon City I.

The father C of the plaintiff died on January 20, 194, and the plaintiff inherited Australia.

[Ground of recognition] 1 through 9, 1 and 2, written evidence Nos. 1 to 1 and 2 (including the number of branch numbers), and 2. According to the above facts of recognition, C, written as the owner of the land of this case on land cadastre, is recognized as the father and the same person as the Plaintiff’s father.

In addition, according to the former custom before the enforcement of the Civil Code, the heir of Australia inherited the property independently, and the land of this case was inherited by C independently.

Thus, the right to claim payment of the deposit money due to the expropriation of the land of this case is the plaintiff, who is the sole property successor of C, and the defendant has a benefit of confirmation in dispute. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

arrow