The appeal against the remaining Defendants shall be dismissed.

The costs of the appeal lawsuit on this part are assessed against the plaintiffs.

According to the reasoning of the judgment of the court below in 1961, the military revolution government at the time of the 1961 Military Revolution government established government policies to carry out a tourist project under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs, and established a site purchase to build tourist facilities by the defendant corporation as a corporation exclusively in charge of construction of the project. The land owners, including the real estate owned by the plaintiffs, refuse to complete the sale, thereby hindering the above construction, and upon request from the Minister of Transport and Fisheries who is the government office of the place of business, the Ministry of Transportation shall apply for adjudication of the expropriation of the land as a public project corresponding to cultural facilities under Article 3 (1) 3 of the Land Expropriation Act, and the committee shall also determine the amount and timing of expropriation of the plaintiffs' real estate as a public project under the above Land Expropriation Act, and shall serve the plaintiffs with the decision of the court below, and the plaintiffs shall be deemed to have received the ownership transfer registration under the name of the public project under the authority of the Ministry of Transport and Maritime Affairs to accept the land expropriation of each of the above land and the plaintiffs.

The grounds of appeal No. 3 are examined.

As seen earlier, the court below held that the registration of transfer of ownership based on land expropriation in the original city shall be acquired in the name of the Minister of Construction and Transportation, which is an institution in exclusive charge of the facilities to be directly covered by the defendant, an incorporated association, and the plaintiffs shall be the plaintiffs and completed the registration by requiring the defendant to deliver the documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership to the defendant, and it shall be consistent with the purport of the defendant's statement, which is the whole purport of the argument of the parties, in fact-finding in the decision of the court below, since it shall be consistent with the purport of the defendants' statement, which is the whole purport of the argument of the parties concerned, in fact-finding in the original judgment

The grounds of appeal No. 4 are examined.

If the court below reviewed various evidences adopted by the original judgment on the records, it is just that the Minister of Transport recognized the case as a public project corresponding to the cultural facilities stipulated in Article 3 (1) 3 of the Land Expropriation Act and recognized the fact that the compensation was paid upon the decision of the Central Land Expropriation Committee by making an application for a decision on the land expropriation as a public project operator himself/herself, and if the facts are so, the case acceptance ruling is lawful and valid, so it is without merit, and it is contrary to the contrary opinion on the premise that this is invalid as a matter of course.

The grounds of appeal Nos. 5 and 6 are examined.

However, the court below, based on evidence, found that the defendant's testimony of the non-party 2 and the non-party 3's testimony of the non-party 4 and the non-party 3's record verification at the court of first instance are merely a material to determine the above facts, and thus, the Minister of Construction and Transportation requested the plaintiffs to receive compensation on July 13, 1962 prior to the expropriation date by the ruling of the Central Land Expropriation Committee, and delivered each document required for the transfer registration of ownership to the defendant's incorporated association, and found that the transfer registration of ownership in this case was completed in the name of the defendant's incorporated association. The court below's reasoning that the court below's decision that the court below's admission was invalid because the non-party 2 and the non-party 3's testimony of the non-party 4 and the non-party 3's non-party 3's record verification was not a material to determine that the above facts were invalid before the expropriation was made due to the lack of any evidence to prove that the court below's decision was invalid or invalid.

The grounds of appeal No. 7 are examined.

The summary of the theory is that, as the non-party 5 and non-party 1 et al. of the parties to the lawsuit did not intend to purchase the real estate in the strong method by threatening the plaintiffs, it was intended to take commercial tourism business as a public service and take land expropriation as a business operator who cannot become a business operator, and the plaintiffs did not receive the compensation for expropriation from the Minister of Construction and Transportation, and the decision of acceptance is null and void due to significant and obvious defects, so the decision of acceptance becomes null and void due to the fact that the registration of ownership transfer of the defendant's incorporated association is null and void. Therefore, it is rejected by the court below as seen earlier, and it is hard to find that the court below is unlawful in the judgment of rejection.

The second ground of appeal is examined.

According to the records, in the first instance court, the representative of the defendant's association will serve the summons on the date of pleading and the first instance court, but thereafter, the summons on the date of pleading cannot be served, and thus, the court below's decision to dismiss the plaintiffs' claims upon the completion of the case by summons by service by public notice. Accordingly, in the case of the court below based on the plaintiffs' appeal, the summons on the first date of pleading against the representative of the defendant was impossible to serve each time, but each of the subsequent dates of pleading was served on the defendant's appeal, but it is evident that the representative of the defendant's association did not attend each time and did not submit the written reply and other legal brief on the date of pleading. Thus, if it is obvious that the representative of the defendant's association will not clearly dispute the plaintiffs' arguments, and therefore, it should be considered that the facts should have been led to the determination on the legitimacy of the plaintiffs' claims against the defendant. However, the court below dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal against the defendant without any measure, and therefore, the court below erred in the misapprehension of the judgment's reasoning.

Therefore, among the original judgment, the part that dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal against the defendant's association's damage to the defendant's association is reversed and remanded, and the remaining defendants' appeal against the defendants is dismissed. The costs of appeal against this part are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices of the Supreme Court (Presiding Justice) Kim Young-nam Kim Young-ho