beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s support to the Gwangju District Court on July 8, 2014 as compensation for losses with respect to the area of 565 square meters in Chungcheongnam-gun B, Chungcheongnam-gun.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On July 8, 2014, the Defendant deposited KRW 42,036,00,000 of the said amount of compensation as the head of the Gwangju District Court Decision 989 was rendered by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, on the ground that the owner of the instant land is unknown, on the grounds that the amount of compensation for the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the 565 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) located in Pyeongtaek-gun B in Pyeongtaek-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Seoul, which was expropriated in accordance with the development industry.
(hereinafter “Deposit of this case”). (b)
The old land cadastre on the instant land was written as “G” in the owner column, but at present, the new land cadastre is written as “H” only.
C. The plaintiff (Appointed) and the designated parties are successors who were born I and succeeded H on February 10, 1971 in succession, and their inheritance shares are as shown in the final inheritance shares in the annexed sheet.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 22, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and fact-finding with the authority of the court of this case, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. On the land cadastre of the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) as to the instant land, G is the same as H inherited by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties. According to this, the right to claim payment of the instant deposit is against the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties who inherited the said H.
B. In light of the fact that the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties inherited the instant land were first produced in the form of a certified copy, and that the owner indicated “G” on the old land cadastre of the instant land, it is difficult to view the instant land as the ownership of H inherited by the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties, and even if the instant land was owned by the said H, there was an agreement on the division of inherited property owned by the designated parties J, K, L and M as to the instant land, and thus, the remaining Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the designated parties did not have any share in the inheritance of the instant land.
3. Determination
(a) Dried stoves;