logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.01.21 2015가단18183
공탁금출급청구권확인
Text

1. As to deposit money of KRW 20,386,80 deposited by the Defendant with the Cheongju District Court No. 668 in March 25, 2013.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On October 30, 1971, the registration of preservation of ownership was completed on October 30, 1971 with respect to the forest B, 14562 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, Chungcheongnam-gun, and 1/8 shares, respectively.

In the real estate register concerning the land of this case, C's address is stated as C'D.

B. The owner column of the co-ownership delay list of the forest land of this case is indicated as name E, resident registration number F, and address D.

C. On January 29, 2013, the Defendant accepted the instant land following the ruling of expropriation by the competent regional Land Tribunal of Chungcheongbuk-do, and on the ground that the address of C’s 1/8 shares is unclear, the Defendant deposited KRW 20,386,80 as “D for the depositor C and his/her address,” under the 2013 Geumju District Court No. 2013No668, Mar. 25, 2013.

(hereinafter “instant deposit”). D.

On the other hand, the plaintiff's father C is described as the Chinese name on the transcript of the removed copies as E, the place of registration as the Ha, the Ha, the Hain-gun G and the date of birth.

E. The Plaintiff’s father C died on October 19, 1975, and co-inheritors agreed on the division of inherited property on October 20, 2015 by the Plaintiff’s inheritance of the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit money.

[Based on recognition] Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. According to the above facts of recognition, C and C indicated on the registry as the 1/8 share holders of the land of this case and the Plaintiff’s father C were deemed the same persons. The right to claim payment of the deposit money of this case was reverted to the Plaintiff.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow