1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows, except where the plaintiff added an additional judgment as to the assertion added by this court, and the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

Additional Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion is invalidated when the project operator did not pay or deposit the compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal by the commencement date of expropriation. The defendant Jong-gun did not deposit the compensation by the commencement date of expropriation, and even though the defendant Eul Co., Ltd. without any legal relations with the plaintiff, the above deposit is not made by the project operator, and the above deposit is void.

B. We examine the judgment, the evidence alone presented by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that Defendant Haw-gun did not deposit the compensation for losses by the commencement date of confinement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, if the purport of evidence No. 7 is added to the statement of evidence No. 7, the defendant Jong-gun deposited KRW 61,874,250 as the deposited person as the plaintiff on December 26, 2002 at the Chuncheon District Court's Young-gu Branch's Young-gu Branch's Young-gu Branch's Young-gu Branch's Young-gu Branch's 2002-2002-2-634 (the date of expropriation) (According to each of the evidence No. 4, 5, and 6-6, the defendant Byung transferred KRW 475,339,210 to the Young-gu branch's Young-gu branch's Young-gu branch's Young-gu branch's Young-gu branch's account on December 26, 2002, which appears to have remitted part of the compensation amount as an assistant to the defendant Jong-gun's performance of the defendant Jong-gun's Y-gun's branch's claim for compensation).

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant Jong-gun did not deposit the compensation for losses with the plaintiff in a valid manner is without merit.

Thus, the plaintiff's defendants are the defendants.