1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

1. Basic facts

A. On the ground of the area of 94 square meters (hereinafter “instant road”) adjacent to the Busan G G major 684 square meters, which was operated by the Plaintiff’s father F (hereinafter “the instant cartel”), there is an obstacle to the entry in the attached list (hereinafter “instant obstacle”).

B. On December 20, 2013, the Defendants: (a) at the voluntary auction procedure (hereinafter “the instant voluntary auction procedure”) based on the right to collateral security established with respect to the instant cartel, the said cartel was successful; and (b) on the same day, the Defendants completed the registration of ownership transfer as the receipt of the Busan District Court’s Seosan Branch Branch of the Busan District Court under No. 87106 with respect to the said cartel.

C. On October 30, 2017, the Busan Metropolitan City Regional Land Tribunal rendered a ruling to expropriate some of the roads in this case (amended on December 18, 2017). In this regard, the North-gu Busan Metropolitan City District Land Tribunal deposited KRW 11,295,00 as the Defendants or the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant deposit”) by designating the Defendants or the Plaintiff as the depositee on the ground that the identity of the owner of the obstacles in this case cannot be identified on December 26, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 8, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is that the instant obstacles were installed on the road of this case, and owned by the Plaintiff. Thus, the Plaintiff sought confirmation that the Defendants, the owner of the instant Moel, were entitled to claim payment of the instant deposit.

B. As seen earlier, the fact that the instant obstacles were installed on the road owned by the Plaintiff is recognized.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the facts and evidence as seen earlier, the above facts alone cannot be deemed as the Plaintiff’s ownership, and evidence to acknowledge otherwise.