The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

1. Whether the lawsuit of this case is legitimate

A. With respect to the Plaintiffs’ assertion and the Defendant with respect to 1,981 square meters of K forest and 7,330 square meters of 1,034 square meters of 1,981 square meters of the above K K forest and 1,981 square meters of 947 square meters of forest and 947 square meters, a settlement was established between the Plaintiffs and the Defendant with a view to dividing the said 7,330 square meters of forest and 7,030 square meters of forest and 200 square meters of forest and 1,981 square meters of forest and 1,981 square meters of forest and 1,981 square meters of the above K forest and 947 square meters as co-ownership by the Plaintiffs (hereinafter “conciliation in this case”).

Therefore, real estate that was divided into the sharing of the plaintiffs according to the reconciliation of this case is owned by the plaintiffs and there is no ownership of the defendant.

Nevertheless, it was divided on May 21, 2018 from the south-gu L Forest, Nam-gu, Nam-gu, Dong-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (hereinafter “the instant real estate”) to the extent that it was jointly owned by the Plaintiffs due to the instant reconciliation (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

Among the 1/9 shares, the registration for the transfer of ownership in the name of the defendant was still still remaining, and the non-party in Boan City deposited 48,378,340 won of compensation for expropriation of the real estate of this case in the future of the defendant.

Therefore, the Plaintiffs seek confirmation against the Defendant on the fact that the claim for payment of deposit money as to the amount stated in the purport of claim corresponding to their respective shares among the above deposit money is against the Plaintiffs.

B. Determination 1) In a lawsuit for confirmation, the benefit of confirmation is recognized in cases where there is a dispute between the parties as to the legal relationship subject to it, and thereby, it is the most effective and appropriate means to determine the Plaintiff’s legal status as a confirmation judgment to eliminate the risk of uneasiness when the Plaintiff’s legal status is dangerous (see Supreme Court Decisions 93Da40089, Nov. 22, 1994; 2003Da55059, Dec. 22, 2005, etc.). Meanwhile, inasmuch as the person who has the right to request the release of deposited goods in the repayment deposit is the person who is the truster or his successor, and the person who has the right to request the release of deposited goods is determined formally by the statement in the deposit certificate, the person who is a creditor under substantive law, even if the person is a creditor under substantive law.