beta
Text
1. The Daegu Urban Corporation deposited money with the Seo-gu District Court Branch Branch of the Daegu District Court No. 2440 on November 15, 2013 652,034.
Reasons
1. Facts without dispute;
A. On April 30, 201, the Plaintiff was awarded a successful bid for the Daegu-gun District Court’s FVoluntary Auction Procedure (hereinafter “instant voluntary Auction Procedure”) with HIJK Forest and L land and buildings on the ground (excluding the instant buildings deemed below; hereinafter all of these lands and buildings referred to as “instant real estate”) owned by G at the time, and completed the ownership transfer registration on July 9, 2001 and used them as stables.
B. However, among the instant real estate, K forest and fields had a 130 square meters in livestock pens extension area, 57.4 square meters in compost extension area, and 10.5 square meters in kitchen, and the instant building was excluded from the subject matter of auction in the instant voluntary auction procedure, even though there were 473 square meters in the instant land, 473 square meters in the sand shed, 445.4 square meters in the sand shed, 518.3 square meters in the sand shed, 518.3 square meters in the sand shed, 60 square meters in the sand shed, 60 square meters in the sand shed, 1,305 square meters in the sand shed, 226.5 square meters in the sand shed, 175 square meters in the sand shed, 15.3 square meters in the warehouse, and 18.81 square meters in the kitchen (hereinafter referred to as “instant building”).
B. Expropriation, etc. of Daegu Urban Corporation on the instant real estate
(1) In implementing M&A, the Daegu Urban Corporation accepted the instant real estate, etc., and the Defendants’ provisional disposition under which the right to receive the expropriation compensation could not be specified, and deposited KRW 652,034,160 (hereinafter “instant compensation”) with the Plaintiff or the Defendants on November 15, 2013 on the ground that the Plaintiff’s deposit deposited KRW 652,034,160 (hereinafter “instant compensation”).
(2) On the other hand, G’s heir, who is the former owner of the instant real estate, was excluded from the object of auction in the instant voluntary auction procedure, and the Plaintiff, who was the successful bidder, did not acquire the ownership, and the ownership of the instant building was not the Plaintiff but to G’s heir, who was the former owner of the instant real estate.