beta
Text
1. The Plaintiff:
A. Defendant B is against the 3,264,630 won deposited with the Daegu District Court of Law No. 217 in 2013.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The parties' clans are clans consisting of descendants of J, and the remaining Defendants except Defendant C are the successors of Dong K, L, M, N,O, P, Q, R, and S, who were the members of the Plaintiff clan.
B. On February 19, 1934, Defendant C and net K, L, M, N, P, Q, R, and L have completed the registration of ownership transfer on each 1/10 portion of the 1/10 portion of the 36th unit of the 1/10 unit of the 36th unit of the 36th unit of the forest land in Seongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam (hereinafter “instant forest”). Defendant E completed the registration of ownership transfer on December 10, 2014 as to the 1/10 of the shares of the above net P due to an inheritance by agreement or division.
C. The instant forest land was expropriated by the Republic of Korea (the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Korea Expressway Corporation as a project agent) as the instant forest land was incorporated into a site for U Highway. The Republic of Korea (the Minister of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, the Korea Highway Corporation as a project agent) deposited KRW 3,264,630,00, respectively, with the deposited person as K, L, M, N, C, C, P, Q, R, R, and S as a financial branch of the Daegu District Court on April 12, 2013, as the amount was KRW 215-24 from the Daegu District Court’s Sung-gu Branch branch on April 12, 2013. (2) Defendant E, a sole heir of the network P, filed a claim for payment of deposit capital with the deposited public official of the Daegu District Court to receive KRW 3,264,630 (limited to the principal of deposit capital) as part of the heir’s deposit funds, and filed a claim for payment of deposit capital in Daegu District Court on March 17, 208, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1-10, Gap evidence 9-11, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to Defendant E, F, G, H, and I
A. The plaintiff asserted that Defendant I's defense prior to the merits constitutes an association which is not a clan, and thus, in order to bring the lawsuit in this case, the general assembly resolution must be passed through legitimate procedures for convening the general assembly. Defendant I did not have been notified of the fact of convening the general assembly.