1. It is confirmed that the right to claim for the payment of the deposit stated in the separate sheet is one-six each of the plaintiffs.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be individually counted.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2, 1951, G’s death and inheritance (1) H (hereinafter “H, Is and hereinafter “the deceased”) succeeded to the deceased’s sole inheritance by the South South South-Nam. On March 7, 1994, the J succeeded to the Plaintiffs who were spouse K and their children, and the spouse K died on October 26, 2012.

(2) The plaintiffs' final inheritance shares are 1/6 each.

(3) Meanwhile, the deceased’s permanent domicile is L in Yangsan-si, and the ownership transfer registration in the name of N on June 11, 1948 was made with respect to 820 square meters (hereinafter “instant land”) in Yangsan-si, Yangsan-si, and the domicile of N on the certified copy of the register is Yangsan-gun.

B. The Defendant deposited the Defendant’s compensation for expropriation (1) on May 11, 2010, and the Defendant expropriated the instant land, and around that time, deposited KRW 5,822,000 as indicated in the attached Form with the deposited person as “N and address Yangsan-siO.”

(2) The fact of the cause of deposit in the deposit document is indicated as follows: (a) “The fact of the cause of deposit in the deposit document is to be accepted by the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s adjudication and to be paid the compensation for expropriation, but it is not possible to know the present address of the person subject to the deposit, thereby making a deposit due to the reasons for non-payment of receipt; and (b) “Article 40(2)1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 through 5 (including paper numbers), inquiry of the deposit accounts of the Ulsan District Court, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that N in the copy of the register of the instant land and the deceased are the same person, prior to whether the N and the plaintiffs’ conciliation division H are the same person, in light of the basic facts, the aforementioned evidence, and the overall purport of the pleadings (including branch numbers).

(1) The lot number of the deceased shall continue to exist.