beta
Text
1. As to KRW 59,785,910 deposited by the Defendant with the Seoul Western District Court No. 900 on March 12, 2007, the Plaintiff A and the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts without dispute;
A. The Defendant admitted 6.6/331 and 23 square meters of 141 square meters in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, Seoul, and deposited KRW 59,785,910 as Seoul Western District Court No. 900 for compensation under the provisions of Article 40(2)1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects on the ground that the address of the person under deposit is unknown on March 12, 2007, the Defendant deposited KRW 59,785,910 for the person under deposit as “G”, the owner on the register.
B. The deceased, the deceased deceased, was living in Eunpyeong-gu Seoul, and died on June 4, 1982. The deceased, the deceased’s wife, and the plaintiff C, D, and the non-party J jointly inherited the deceased’s property at their respective shares of 2/12, respectively.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiffs, on the ground that the deceased G, its decedent, is the owner of each of the instant land, seek confirmation that the right to claim payment of the said deposit is against the Plaintiffs. The Defendant asserted that the deceased is not the same as the registrant of each of the instant land.
B. The fact that the depositee is identical to G G G, the decedent of the plaintiffs, and G, the registrant of each land of this case, and G, the Korean and Chinese name of G, the registrant of each land of this case, at the time of the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in G, and the fact that his domicile and actual domicile are the same as his domicile and actual domicile of G, the decedent of the plaintiffs, the decedent of this case, at the time of the completion of the registration of transfer of ownership in each land of this case, and the fact that the resident registration number of G, the decedent of the decedent of this case, is not the actual existence, is not a dispute between the parties, or there is no other counter-proof according to each of the statements in subparagraphs A through 19, and there is no other evidence to deem that there was another person with the same name other than the above net G in