1. All appeals filed by the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff and the counterclaim filed in the trial are dismissed.

2. Costs of appeal; and

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. The reasons for the court's explanation in this part are as stated in the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where "the land of this case" in the 3rd and 10th of the judgment of the court of first instance is "the land share of this case", and therefore, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Determination as to the cause of the principal claim

A. (1) The Defendant’s assertion can pay the instant deposit money according to the said final judgment.

It is unlawful for the Plaintiff to seek confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit money in this case against the Defendant without going through such procedures, as there is no benefit of confirmation.

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim for expropriation compensation had already been extinguished due to the deposit of the instant case before the date of closing argument in the said appellate trial.

In this case, deposit officials refuse the plaintiff's claim for advance payment of deposit money.

However, since the deposit official has the formal review right, it is not possible to make a final judgment on the identity, etc. between the deposit official and the person claiming the right to receive compensation, which cannot be resolved through objection to the disposition of the deposit official or objection thereto.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2006Da68650, 68667 Decided February 9, 2007). Considering the above, the Plaintiff cannot withdraw the instant deposit solely from the said final and conclusive judgment.

In addition, in the case of the deposit for repayment on the ground of the relative uncertainty of the creditor, one of the parties to the deposit can request the withdrawal of the deposit by submitting a written consent of the other party to the deposit or a final and conclusive judgment in favor of the other party to claim the withdrawal of the deposit.

(See Supreme Court Decision 201Da55405 Decided November 10, 2011). Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s seeking confirmation of the right to claim payment of the instant deposit against the Defendant, one of the persons to whom the deposit for repayment was made, is relative and unafford. There is benefit of confirmation.

In the end, the defendant's assertion is.