손실보상금 결정 취소
The instant lawsuit is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
1. Details of ruling;
(a) Business authorization and public notice - Business name: B development project: Defendant - Public notice of project implementation authorization: C, the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport notice, and May 2, 2017;
Adjudication of expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on March 14, 2019 - Subject to expropriation by the Central Land Tribunal on March 14, 2019: D forest land 496 square meters in Jinju-si: The starting date of expropriation: May 8, 2019 - Compensation for losses: 36,456,000 won
C. The Central Land Tribunal’s ruling on an objection made on September 26, 2019 - The fact that there is no dispute against the Plaintiff to dismiss the objection [based on recognition], Gap evidence 1 through 4, Eul evidence 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Whether the lawsuit of this case is lawful
A. The Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case seeking an increase in the amount of compensation for expropriation prior to the Defendant’s merits is unlawful since it was filed with the lapse of the filing period stipulated in Article 85 of the Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (hereinafter “Land Compensation Act”).
B. Determination 1) Article 85 of the Land Compensation Act provides that a project operator, landowner or person concerned may institute an administrative litigation within 90 days from the date of receiving a written adjudication when dissatisfied with the adjudication, and within 60 days from the date of receiving a written adjudication on an objection if an objection was filed. 2) In this case, whether the period of filing a lawsuit is expired or not, it is evident that the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 2, 2019 from October 2, 2019 when the spouse who is a cohabitant was served with a written adjudication on an objection filing, and on December 10, 2019 when the period of filing the lawsuit was over 60 days.
As to this, the plaintiff asserts that it is not a legitimate service because his spouse, other than himself, received a written objection, but it is not a legitimate service. However, according to Article 186 (1) of the Civil Procedure Act applied mutatis mutandis pursuant to Article 8 (2) of the Administrative Litigation Act, if the person to receive the service is not present at the place to be served, the plaintiff's assertion
Therefore, the lawsuit of this case is brought.