Plaintiff 1 and one other (Law Firm Jeong, Attorney Park Jong-young, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

Korea National Housing Corporation (Attorney Kim Jae-hwan, Counsel for the plaintiff-appellant)

August 31, 2006

Suwon District Court Decision 2005Gahap7081, 2005Gahap1070 decided January 18, 2006

1. The defendant's appeal is all dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. Purport of claim

On February 4, 2005, the Defendant’s deposit withdrawal claim for KRW 172,078,420 deposited by Sungnam District Court Branch 2005No1065, and for KRW 30,510,370 deposited by the court 2005No1064.

2. Purport of appeal

The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance is revoked, and all the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant are dismissed.

1. Basic facts

A. The deceased non-party 1 was born on May 5, 1912, and the name of the satisfaction compensation is “Dongdong (Dongdong road)” and the name on the family register is “non-party 1.” The deceased had resided in the same Dong (Sadong omitted) as that next to the Sungnam-si, Sungnam-gu (Saeongnam-gu omitted), which is the collective village of the Sungnam-si (Sadong road omitted) in the name of the deceased and the name on the family register.

B. Nonparty 2 completed the registration of initial ownership on December 2, 1961 as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (A) and (b) 436 in Seongbuk-gu, Sungnam-gu, Seoul Special Metropolitan City (detailed number omitted); and Nonparty 3 completed the registration of initial ownership on December 2, 1961 as to the real estate stated in the separate sheet (C).

C. Nonparty 2, 3, 4, 1, and 5 decided to share 1/5 shares each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (a) through (c). On April 14, 1962, Nonparty 2 completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1/5 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (a), (b), and Nonparty 3 completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1/5 shares each of the real estate listed in the separate sheet (c). Nonparty 3 completed the registration of ownership transfer for 1/5 shares among the real estate listed in the separate sheet (c).

D. At the time of completing each registration of ownership transfer for real estate listed in the separate sheet as above, the deceased non-party 1 entered the name of the owner in the name of "Dongdong-ro", which is the name of satisfaction compensation other than the name on the family register, and entered all the addresses of the four remaining four persons other than the non-party 3 in the register in Sungnam-si (the third omitted).

E. Meanwhile, on February 25, 1965, Nonparty 6, Nonparty 7, 5, and 1 entered the ownership transfer registration of each of the shares of the deceased Nonparty 1 on the registry (hereinafter “each of the shares of the instant real estate”). At the time, Nonparty 1 entered the ownership transfer registration of each of the shares of the deceased Nonparty 1 on the registry (hereinafter “the shares of each of the instant real estate shares of each of the instant real estate” of the real estate in (a) through (e) of the attached list as indicated in (e) and (e) of the land located prior to the subdivision of the real estate.

F. Since October 20, 1968, the deceased non-party 1 resided in the business territory of the Gyeonggi-gu, Gyeonggi-do, the first place of domicile of which is the domicile of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the resident of the Dong, and died on December 13, 1996 at the Seonam-si

G. Meanwhile, while implementing the housing site development project in the village district, the defendant expropriated the real estate of this case (b), (c) and (e) through a ruling of expropriation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee. At the time, the non-party 1 [b) and (c) who is the owner of each of the above real estate at the time, entered the real estate in the registry of real estate in the registry of real estate in addition to the real estate], the actual address is not verifiable, and the "Impossibility of receipt due to unknown address" under Article 40 (2) 1 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects as the cause of deposit. The defendant omitted the above deposit money of this case (b) and (c) 172,078, and 420 won as 1/5 shares of each of the above real estate at the time with the name and address of the person who is the owner of the above real estate at the time and the address of the non-party 1 (3) / 5) / 10 of the above real estate at the court deposit No.

H. After that, around October 2005, the Plaintiffs and Nonparty 8, who are the legal successors of the deceased Nonparty 1, agreed on the division of inherited property to hold the Plaintiffs’ right to claim payment of the full amount of compensation for expropriation of real estate shares, and on November 7, 2005, filed an application for withdrawal of each of the instant deposits with the above court officials on the ground that the deceased Nonparty 1 was the same as the deposited person under the deposit. However, the deposit official notified the non-acceptance 8 of non-acceptance 1 on the ground that it is insufficient to prove that the deceased Nonparty 1 was the same as the deposited person under the deposit.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, evidence No. 2, evidence No. 1, 2, and 3-1 to 3, evidence No. 4-1 to 4, evidence No. 5-1 to 3, evidence No. 6-1 to 4, evidence No. 7-1, 2, A8 through 11, evidence No. 12-1 to 3, evidence No. 13-1, 2, evidence No. 14-1 to 6, evidence No. 15-1, and 2, testimony of Non-Party No. 9 of the first instance court, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The assertion

With respect to the instant lawsuit seeking confirmation that the Plaintiffs’ claim for withdrawal of each of the instant deposits is against the Plaintiffs, the Defendant: (a) accepted each of the instant real estate shares; (b) and (c) accepted each of the real estate shares; and (e) deposited each of the said deposits lawfully after designating the deposited parties based on the name and address of the nominal owner on the registry, as it is impossible to identify the address and the actual place of residence, other than the name of the nominal owner on the registry or Nonparty 1; and (b) accordingly, the nominal owner on the registry and the network Nonparty 1 were the same person; (c) if the deposited parties are the same person on the registry, the Plaintiffs are to submit evidentiary materials and evidentiary materials related to their inheritance to the deposited officials, and if the deposited officials refuse the request for withdrawal due to lack of supporting materials, they seek confirmation of withdrawal of the deposit against the State; and (c) otherwise, they do not have any legal interest to seek confirmation of the Defendant’s claim for withdrawal of deposit against the Plaintiffs.

B. Determination

(1) The deposit system is operated under the premise of the formal review right of the deposit officer and the mechanical and formal handling of the deposit affairs, and thus, the person to whom the deposit is made should be specified. In addition, the deposit officer’s judgment on the identity of the person to whom the deposit is made should not be involved and the service of the notice of deposit should not be hindered (see Supreme Court en banc Decision 96Da11747 delivered on October 16, 1997). Meanwhile, a person who intends to withdraw the deposit must submit a document proving that he/she has a right to claim payment under Article 8(1) of the Deposit Act and Article 30 subparag. 2 of the Rules on the Handling of Deposit Affairs, unless there are special circumstances.

(2) However, if the address of the person against whom the deposit was made on the deposit certificate is not consistent with the address under the resident registration card and is not connected with one another, the person against whom the deposit was made may submit his/her address and minor data proving the same person to the depositor to correct the address of the deposit (Article 27-2 of the Regulations on the Management of Deposit Affairs) and request direct payment of the deposit money after correcting the address. In this case, if the depositor voluntarily refuses the application for a correction of the deposit certificate, the deposit holder may obtain a judgment on the claim for payment of deposit money (including reconciliation and settlement protocol) against the depositor and apply for payment of deposit money with the “written document proving the claim for payment of deposit” (Article 168 of March 31, 195), and further, if the identity between the person against whom the actual right to whom the deposit was made and the person against whom the deposit was made on the deposit certificate is recognized, it conforms with the purport of the deposit system to enable the actual right holder to claim payment of deposit money based on the original and conclusive statement of deposit.

(3) In general, since the principle of trust and good faith provides that the person performing the obligation to cooperate in the receipt of payment by the creditor, and the rules on the handling of payment by the creditor shall cooperate in the withdrawal procedure of the creditor (Articles 19(2)(f), 20(3), 22(1), 27(1), and 30 subparag. 1, etc.). The same applies to the case where the person performing the obligation to cooperate by the payer or the person performing the obligation to cooperate in the payment by the land expropriation procedure is deposited the compensation by the land expropriation procedure. Thus, the depositor bears the duty to cooperate so as not to interfere with the withdrawal of payment by the creditor even if possible after the deposit is made by making efforts to identify the creditor as soon as possible, and the creditor bears the duty to cooperate with the creditor so as not to have any information and data on the attribution of the land ownership, and it is not reasonable to accept the change of the defendant's name or the defendant's claim for payment of the deposit by obtaining a judgment on the right to claim payment by the deposit.

(4) According to the above facts, even if the identity of the plaintiffs in the substantive relationship between the deposited parties in the deposit document of this case and the deposited parties in the deposit document of this case is recognized, the plaintiffs' claim for payment of deposit money was not accepted due to the plaintiffs' failure to explain that each of the above deposited parties is the same person. Thus, as long as the defendant asserted its identity and refuses to correct the entries in the deposit document, the plaintiffs' receiving of the confirmation judgment against the defendant constitutes an appropriate means to resolve legal disputes over the withdrawal of deposit money, and therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

According to the above facts, on December 13, 1996, the share of real estate in this case (B), (c), and (e) was jointly inherited to the plaintiffs and the non-party 8 by 1/3 each due to the death of the deceased non-party 1 who was the deceased non-party 1 of the plaintiffs' body on December 13, 1996. Since then, each of the deposits in this case deposited by the defendant as a compensation for adjudication while accepting each of the above real estate was ultimately reverted to the plaintiffs and the non-party 8 by a division of inherited property

4. Conclusion

Therefore, the plaintiffs have legal interest in seeking confirmation against the defendant that the right to request the withdrawal of each of the above deposits is the plaintiffs in order to pay the deposited money as the right to claim the withdrawal of each of the above deposits. Therefore, the plaintiffs' claim of this case is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed in its entirety.

[Attachment Omission of List of Real Estate]

Judges Maximum Jae-type (Presiding Judge)