1. On March 11, 2010, the Defendant deposited 36,604,80 won by the Busan District Court Branch of the Dong Branch of the District Court of Busan on March 11, 2010 as 36,604,80 won.

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 34 (including each number) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

A. The Plaintiff, who owns Busan Shipping Daegu Land (hereinafter “instant land”), was given a title trust to the clan C, and was under C’s name.

B. The Defendant deposited the land price of KRW 36,604,80 as the Busan District Court Branch No. 367 in 2010 on the ground that it was impossible to identify the heir of C, who is an assessment title, in the process of acquiring the ownership of the land of this case in order to develop the land of this case as an industrial complex.

(hereinafter “instant deposit”). C.

C was born in 1867 and died in around 1967, and the land of this case was inherited as shown in the separate sheet.

The Plaintiff terminated the title trust of the instant land against D, E, F, G, H, I, J, and K among the inheritors of C, and notified the fact of transferring the assignment of the instant land on behalf of the heir upon the transfer of the right to claim deposit payment as to the amount equivalent to the said heir’s share out of the instant deposit money.

E. Each inheritance share of the inheritor who transferred the right to claim the payment of deposit money to the Plaintiff is D, E, and F, G 504/21658, G 324/21658, H, I 216/21658, J, K, and K 14/21658, respectively, and the aggregate of these shares of inheritance is 2556/21658 [the aggregate of these shares of inheritance = 504 504 504 216/2144)/21658].

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Plaintiff acquired the right to claim the payment of the deposit equivalent to 2556/21658 shares out of the instant deposit, and thus, the Plaintiff has the right to claim the payment of the deposit (i.e., KRW 36,604,800 x 2556/21658 x 25558). As long as the Plaintiff deposited the compensation on the ground that the Defendant was unaware of the person having the right to claim the payment of the compensation, the Plaintiff claims the status of the person having the right to claim the payment of the deposit, and the Plaintiff

(See Supreme Court Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997, etc.). B.

The plaintiff is described in the above paragraph (a).