1. The right to claim a deposit for each of the money deposited as shown in the attached list shall be against each other.

1. Facts of cause of the claim;

A. On June 30, 2004, the Plaintiff was a contractor of J apartment newly constructed on the land outside I and 44 of Chuncheon (hereinafter “the apartment of this case”). On June 30, 2004, the Plaintiff acquired all rights, such as business rights, etc. to the apartment of this case from H&D Development Co., Ltd., which was the executor company of the apartment of this case. The Defendants are the buyers who purchased the apartment of this case or the assignee who acquired the apartment of this case from them.

B. In advertising the sale of the apartment of this case, H&D Development Co., Ltd. advertised that the executor should bear the school site charges when advertising the apartment of this case, and thereafter paid all the school site charges for the apartment of this case, which were imposed under the name of the buyer of Chuncheon-si.

C. However, there was a decision of the Constitutional Court that the collection of school site charges is unconstitutional, and accordingly, Chuncheon City deposited each amount indicated in the separate sheet, which is a refund of school site charges, in accordance with the decision of the Constitutional Court, as shown in the separate sheet, on the ground that “it is impossible to confirm the subject of refund because there is a dispute between the Plaintiff who succeeded to the right of the actual payer and the Defendants, who are the title imposing authority.”

According to Article 3(1) of the Special Act on the Refund, etc. of Charges for School Sites and Article 4(2) of the Enforcement Decree of the same Act, the person entitled to receive the refund of charges for school sites for the apartment of this case is the Plaintiff as the person who actually paid the charges under a contract between the parties. Thus, the person entitled to receive the refund of charges for school sites for the apartment of this case is the Plaintiff.

2. We examine the judgment, and in full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 between the plaintiff and the defendant Eul, the plaintiff's above assertion can be acknowledged, and there is no counter-proof, and the remaining defendants except the plaintiff and the defendant B are the same defendants pursuant to Article 150 of the Civil Procedure Act.