logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.03.10 2014가단206517
공탁금출급확인
Text

1. The part of the claim by the Appointed B among the instant lawsuit shall be dismissed.

2. The defendant's assistance in Suwon District Court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 10, 1914, C Forest land 793 square meters (hereinafter “the instant forest”) was assessed against E in Silung-si.

B. On July 16, 2009, the defendant accepted the forest of this case in which the state of non-registration had not been made according to the adjudication of the Central Land Tribunal, and on September 7, 2009, deposited the amount of KRW 78,988,700 (hereinafter “the deposit money of this case”) as the depositee’s identity as the depositee’s identity, and completed the registration of preservation of ownership in the future of the defendant.

다. 원고(선정당사자, 이하 ‘원고’라고 한다) 및 선정자들(이하 위 사람들을 같이 부를 때는 ‘원고 등’이라고 한다)은 ‘경기도 시흥군 D’를 본적으로 하는 E(E, F생)의 자손들인데, E는 1938. 9. 20. 원고는 E가 1941. 9. 20. 사망하였다고 주장하나, 소화(昭和) 13년에 사망한 사실이 인정된다.

Death.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 19, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the same person as E, a title holder of the assessment of the forest of this case, and E, an ancestor, the decedent, and the decedent. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim for the withdrawal of the instant deposit is against the Plaintiff and the designated parties.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (1) The instant lawsuit prior to the merits is an essential lawsuit that ought to be instituted by all inheritors who jointly inherited the right to claim the payment of deposit money as a party to the lawsuit, and thus, all inheritors must be selected in order to file the instant lawsuit as the appointed party.

However, since the plaintiff did not explain that there was a legitimate act of selection from the Appointor B, it is not effective to select it, and it does not have a legitimate ratification only with the ratification of the remaining Appointor B except for the Appointor B.

Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is filed by the designated party who has no legitimate act of selection.

arrow