1. On January 25, 2018, the Defendant deposited 263,410,80 won with the Seoggu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court No. 333, the Plaintiff A, B, and C.

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant deposited the Defendant’s land expropriation compensation, as the project implementer of the KK Industrial Complex Development Project, applied for the adjudication of expropriation of the instant woodland 7,736 square meters (hereinafter “instant woodland”) in Daegu-gun, a non-registered land incorporated into the said project, to the Central Land Expropriation Committee. Around December 7, 2017, the Defendant rendered a final judgment of expropriation of the instant woodland.

On January 25, 2018, the Defendant deposited KRW 263,410,800 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the deposited person as “M” (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with respect to the expropriation compensation for the instant forest as prescribed by the said expropriation ruling by the Seogu District Court Branch of the Daegu District Court Decision No. 2018, Jan. 25, 2018 (hereinafter “instant deposit”).

B. The plaintiffs' family relationship 1) The head of the Australian N, the head of the network N, and the head of the network P. The deceased on March 14, 1936, and the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the family head. 2) The deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the children of the deceased on the part of the plaintiff A, B, C, D, E, I, J, and the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased on the part of the deceased.

The deceased on September 10, 1993, the deceased on September 10, 1993, the plaintiff F and his children, who are the spouse of the plaintiff F and his children, and the plaintiff G and H jointly inherited the net P's property according to their respective inheritance shares.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 3 through 5, 13 evidence (including evidence of provisional number; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1 and 2 evidence, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

가. 당사자 주장의 요지 원고들은 망 P의 조부(祖父)인 망 N이 이 사건 임야 소유자이자 이 사건 공탁의 피공탁자인 ‘M’과 동일인이므로, 이 사건 공탁금에 관한 출급청구권이 원고들의 상속분에 따라 귀속되었다고 주장하면서 피고를 상대로 그 확인을 구하는 반면, 피고는 망 P의 조부인 망 N과 이 사건 임야 소유자이자 이 사건 공탁의 피공탁자인 ‘M’이 동일인이라 보기 어렵다는 취지로 다툰다.

(b) judgment;