1.On May 17, 2016, the Daejeon Urban Corporation deposited 321,813,000 won in gold 2832 by Daejeon District Court in 2016.

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On March 24, 2016, the Daejeon Urban Corporation: (a) admitted the area of 783 square meters in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Daejeon (hereinafter “instant land”); (b) deposited the area as the depositee with the Daejeon District Court Decision No. 2832, May 17, 2016, on the ground that the depositee was designated as the heir of the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant; hereinafter “Plaintiff”) or the deceased J, with the exception of Defendant D and Defendant D, and the remaining heir of the deceased J, and was unable to pay the deposit money to anyone (hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

B. On May 11, 1972, the Daejeon-gun Kwan-gun 564 (hereinafter “the land before the land substitution”) was replaced by the land in this case, at 312 square meters and the land at 564 square meters, according to the land substitution disposition issued by the Taeok-gun Gun (hereinafter “land before the land substitution”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (including a provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The closed register on the land before the Plaintiff’s assertion is indicated as “Seoul-gun N” at the address of the owner’s “M,” but it is merely erroneous in the clerical error of “Seoul-gunO,” which is the Plaintiff’s address, and the real owner of the land before the land substitution is the Plaintiff. As such, the right to claim for payment of the instant deposit is the Plaintiff

B. The term “MN”, which is the address of “M” recorded in the closed register concerning the land before the Defendants’ assertion as to the land substitution, is consistent with the address of the Defendant’s decedent J.

Therefore, since the owner of the land before replotting is the deceasedJ, the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit is against the Defendants, who are the heir of the deceased J.

3. The following facts and circumstances revealed by adding the whole purport of the pleadings to each of the above recognition facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 18, and Eul evidence No. 1-2, i.e., the plaintiff's resident registration number is stated in the land cadastre (Evidence No. 5) of this case, and the land before replotting.