1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

1. The plaintiff's main grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance. In light of the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of

Therefore, the reasoning for the court’s explanation on the instant case is as follows, except for the addition of the following “Supplementary judgment” as to the assertion emphasized by the Plaintiff in this court, and therefore, this Court’s explanation is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Supplementary judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion is entitled to receive compensation for expropriation of the land of this case as a manager of the land of this case, which is the response to the collection of the land of this case.

The compensation for the above acceptance ruling was received by the plaintiff and used for the expenses for the acceptance of the house, etc., and the depositor L deposited the compensation in the name of the owner on the register.

In addition to seeking confirmation that the right to receive the deposit money against the Defendants, the deposited money, is the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff does not have any way to exercise the Plaintiff’s right. The claim for payment of deposit based on the judgment of confirmation of the claim for payment of deposit is the most effective and appropriate means to remove the Plaintiff’s existing apprehension and risk in the legal status. Thus, the instant lawsuit has a benefit of confirmation.

B. The holder of the right to claim the return of deposited goods of the first deposit for repayment is the person to whom the deposit was made or his successor, and the person to whom the deposit was made is determined formally by the statement of the deposit. Thus, even if a creditor is a creditor under substantive law, the right to claim the return of deposited goods cannot be

Therefore, even if a third party, who is not the principal, has received a judgment confirming the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against the principal, the third party who received the judgment confirming the right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods cannot directly make a claim for the withdrawal of deposited goods. Therefore, the claim is seized against the principal's right to claim the withdrawal of deposited goods against the principal.