1. Defendant B’s KRW 62,261,550 as well as 5% per annum from March 6, 2014 to October 28, 2018.

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was one of the co-owners of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D cemetery land of 1,101 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”).

On June 3, 2011, the Central Land Tribunal rendered a ruling of expropriation for public works under Article 4 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (Seoul E projects) with respect to the instant land, and thereafter, on June 29, 201, by the said ruling of expropriation, the Korea Land Tribunal deposited KRW 62,261,550 (hereinafter “instant deposit”) with the Seoul Central District Court No. 12459, Jun. 29, 2011 with the Plaintiff as the depositee.

B. On August 7, 2013, Defendant B: (a) on the title trust of the instant land to the said co-owners on July 8, 1972, Defendant B confirmed that the right to claim the payment of the instant deposit was against the non-party clan.

‘The Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap60741) filed a lawsuit for settlement (Seoul Central District Court 2013Gahap60741). (c) On January 22, 2014, the above court rendered a ruling of recommending settlement that "the plaintiff expresses his/her intention to transfer the case to the non-party clan with respect to the right to claim the payment of the deposit of this case and notify the Republic of Korea of the above assignment of the claim."

B. Around February 11, 2014, the decision to recommend the settlement of this case became formally final and conclusive, and Defendant B, the president of the non-party clan, paid the instant deposit on March 5, 2014.

On December 10, 2014, the Plaintiff filed an objection against the ruling of recommending the settlement of this case with the above court and filed an application for designating a date for the designation of a settlement date, and the said lawsuit continued on the ground that the ruling of recommending the settlement of this case was served unlawfully

On July 3, 2015, the above court is inappropriate because the non-party to the clan cannot be deemed to have satisfied the substance of the clan, and the non-party B is the representative of the non-party clan.