[1] Where the operator of a public works project deposits compensation for unregistered land whose owner has not been entered in the land cadastre under Article 40 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor, and the name and address of the person to be deposited in the deposit is indicated as an "unexplic person (explic person's name and address)", the deposit constitutes an absolute deposit without specifying the person to be deposited

[2] The procedure for withdrawing the deposit in the deposit of an absolute uncertainty made pursuant to Article 40 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects

[3] The case holding that the lawsuit for confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods is lawful by the lawful inheritor of the expropriated land incorporated into the public service project against the local land management office, the depositor, as the implementer of the public

[1] The case holding that where the operator of a public works project deposits the compensation for the unregistered land (only in the land register) under Article 40 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor, and the name and address of the deposited person is indicated as an unknown (the name and address of the owner of the public injury)" in the deposit, the deposit constitutes an absolute deposit without specifying the deposited person

[2] In order to withdraw the deposit in the case of an absolute and uncertain deposit made pursuant to Article 40 of the Act on the Acquisition of Land, etc. for Public Works and the Compensation therefor, the deposit officer shall pay the deposit money by deeming that the original copy of the judgment falls under the “written document proving the right to claim the return” as stipulated in Article 30 subparag. 2 of the Deposit Rules.

[3] The case holding that the lawsuit for confirmation of the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods is lawful by the lawful inheritor of the expropriated land incorporated into the public service project against the local land management office, the depositor, as the implementer of the public service

[1] Article 40 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects; Articles 487 and 488(3) of the Civil Act / [2] Article 40 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects; Articles 487 and 488(3) of the Civil Act; Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 30 subparag. 2 of the Deposit Rules / [3] Article 40 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects; Article 250 of the Civil Procedure Act; Article 30 subparag. 2 of the Deposit Rules

[2] [3] Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997 (Gong1997Ha, 3557)

Plaintiff 1 and seven others (Attorney Yoon-soo, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Busan Regional Land Management Office

August 30, 2007

1. On November 10, 2006, the defendant confirmed that the defendant's claim for the withdrawal of deposited money in the item column of the withdrawal column of the attached Table was made to the plaintiffs among the 14,890,200 won deposited under the name of the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration with the Changwon District Court head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration in the name of 474 in 2006.

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

The same shall apply to the order.

1. Basic facts

The following facts are not disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account each description in Gap1 through 4 (including each number), Eul 1 through 7:

A. Adjudication on expropriation of the land of this case and deposit of compensation money

(1) The land of this case (hereinafter “instant land”) is the land that was acquired on November 15, 1921 by the deceased non-party 1 (the deceased on December 7, 1956) and was registered as the owner on the land cadastre, and was registered only in the land cadastre, which was unregistered.

(2) The Defendant, as the executor of the Yellow River Water Repair Project (hereinafter “the instant public works”), is performing the said project on November 4, 2004 and publicly notified the maintenance execution plan on December 23, 2005, and currently proceeding with the aim of completing the project on December 8, 2007.

(3) The instant land was also incorporated into the instant public works, and the deceased Nonparty 1’s residence may not be known, and the Defendant filed an application for adjudication with the Central Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter “Central Land Expropriation Committee”) pursuant to Article 28 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works (hereinafter “Public Works Act”) through the procedure of public announcement of a plan for compensation in daily newspapers on the instant land.

(4) On September 27, 2006, the level of heavy water was decided to expropriate the land of this case in KRW 14,890,200 as of September 27, 2006 through the procedures prescribed in the Public Works Act. According to the above ruling, the Defendant deposited KRW 14,890,200 on November 10, 206, the depositer’s name as the head of Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration, the name of the person under deposit (non-party 1) and the address is unknown (non-party 126) as the head of Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration, the name of the person under deposit (non-party 1), and the address is unknown (non-party 126).

B. The plaintiffs' inheritance

(1) The deceased non-party 1 died on December 7, 1956, and the deceased family head's inheritor 2 was the sole inheritor of the non-party 1. The non-party 4, plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and 4 died on November 16, 1978 and jointly inherited the non-party 2 (the non-party 3 and the plaintiff 4 were the co-inheritors 1.5, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 1, and the others 1), the non-party 3 died on October 23, 191, and succeeded the share of inheritance again by the non-party 4, the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, and 4 (the equal share inheritance), the non-party 4 died on July 3, 2006, and the plaintiff 5, the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 65, the co-inheritors of the plaintiff 1, the plaintiff 585 (the plaintiff 1, the co-appellant).

(2) When calculating the share of inheritance of the above plaintiffs, the entry in the column for inheritance shares in the separate sheet is as follows.

2. Judgment on the defendant's main defense

Since the Defendant’s project operator under Article 40 of the Public Works Act refers to the state that is the subject of the obligation of rights as a person who acquires the ownership by the adjudication and is responsible for compensating for the loss suffered by the landowner, the instant lawsuit filed against the Defendant, which is a mere administrative agency not the State, is unlawful. As seen earlier, the deposit of this case constitutes an absolute deposit made pursuant to Article 40 of the Public Works Act without specifying the person to whom the deposit was made (the name and address of the person to whom the deposit was made are clearly indicated). In order to pay the deposit, the Defendant filed a lawsuit to confirm the right of payment against the depositor to whom the deposit was made, and submitted the original copy of the final judgment to the deposit official, and the deposit official is paid by deeming that the original copy of the judgment falls under the “written document proving the right of payment for the deposit” as stipulated in Article 30 subparag. 2 of the Deposit Rule. 2. As seen earlier, although the Defendant’s deposit is indicated as the head of Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration, it is unlawful for the Plaintiffs, the Defendant’s representative of the deposit.

3. Judgment on the merits

As seen earlier, the land in this case is the land of the deceased non-party 1 and the plaintiffs inherited it in the same proportion as the inheritance shares column as stated in the attached Form. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the right to claim payment of the deposit in this case belongs to the plaintiffs in proportion to their respective inheritance shares (However, in calculating the amount equivalent to 22/495, each inheritance shares of plaintiffs 6, 7, and 8, it is clear that the amount is 661,786.67 won, but the above plaintiffs' claim shall be followed).

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

[Attachment] List: omitted

Judges Kim Sang-hoon (Presiding Justice)