1. The Defendant’s name at the head of the Busan Regional Construction and Management Administration (Seoul Regional District Court Decision 236, Jul. 8, 2015) is the Changwon District Court 2015.

1. Basic facts

A. 1) The non-party M died on January 31, 1992. The non-party M was his spouse before his death, and was his deceased N (the death of August 2, 1998) and his children and deceased O, deceased P, and the plaintiff (the appointed party; hereinafter referred to as the "Plaintiff").

(2) The networkO died on September 24, 1986, and the Appointor E, G, H, I, and J as the spouse at the time of the death.

3) The net P died on September 25, 1996. At the time of the death, the deceased’s spouse L was put to K and a selected child as his/her spouse. B. On July 14, 2015, the Defendant: Q 159 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

3) A copy of the register on the land of this case (hereinafter referred to as the “register of the instant register”) was adopted.

B) In view of the foregoing, T having the domicile in the “Styang-gun S” is deemed to have completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of No. 29013 on December 31, 1964, 1964 regarding the portion of 1/2 of the instant land, such as Changwon District Court Seoyang-gun, etc. D. The Defendant deposited KRW 11,376,450 of the land expropriation compensation as the depositee, with the said T as the depositee, inasmuch as the location of T in the copy of the instant case is not verified. D. The Plaintiff and the designated parties (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Plaintiff, etc.”).

(E) The Plaintiff asserted that T’s decedents indicated in the registry of the instant case are owners, and filed a claim for payment of KRW 11,376,450 for land expropriation compensation against the deposited public officials. E. The deposit official refused payment on the ground that T in the registry of the instant case is the same as the Plaintiff’s prior owner M.

2. As to the issue of the instant case’s seek confirmation of the right to claim deposit payments against the Defendant, the Defendant’s “this case’s lawsuit is unlawful as there is no benefit of confirmation.”

Even if it is not so, this case.