The instant lawsuit is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff as a party is a part of the doors comprised of DC 28 grandchildren E in the city.

E completes the registration of ownership transfer on December 10, 1947, on the basis of trading on December 10, 1947, the F 210 square meters (hereinafter “F F F F F F F F B before division”) in macro-si.

On April 10, 1980, the above land was divided into G 139 square meters (460 square meters, hereinafter “G”) and H 71 square meters (235 square meters, hereinafter “H land”) respectively.

B. On April 10, 1980, the Plaintiff related to the division of G land completed the registration of ownership transfer based on sale on March 5, 1970, pursuant to Article 3094 of the former Act on Special Measures for the Registration, etc. of Ownership of Real Estate.

In addition, on April 24, 2017, G land was divided into 1 236 m2 and J 1 m2, respectively.

C. On the other hand, on July 25, 1974, the land category of H was changed to a road, and on April 24, 2017, the said H land was divided into 187 square meters of H road, 47 square meters of K road (hereinafter “instant land”) and 1 square meters of L road.

On November 3, 2017, the instant land was transferred to the Defendant for expropriation, and the registration of ownership transfer was completed on May 17, 2018.

The Defendant deposited the Defendant’s land to be expropriated in order to incorporate the instant land into a road while implementing the construction of a residential planning facility, and accordingly, on October 20, 2017, on the grounds that on October 20, 2017, the address and residence of the deposited party E cannot be known as to KRW 37,226,350 (hereinafter “the instant deposit”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 11, and Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Defendant asserted that the instant land was expropriated in order to incorporate the instant land into the road while implementing the construction of the urban planning facilities. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion also left the Gyeongnam-do.