B. Even if the land used by the above possession is the site of national highways, if the land located within Seoul Metropolitan Government, it is reasonable to claim damages, etc. against Seoul Metropolitan Government.

B. If the road incorporated into the land of this case is located in Seoul even if it is a national level, the management agency is the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, so it is reasonable to claim damages against the same Si.

The portion arising from the defendant's appeal among the costs of appeal is borne by the defendant, and the portion arising from the plaintiffs' appeal is borne by the plaintiffs.

Even though the contents of land expropriation show the effect of compulsory acquisition of property rights of other persons for public projects, it is the condition for payment of compensation, Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that if public project operators do not pay or deposit compensation decided by the Land Expropriation Committee by the time of expropriation, the adjudication becomes null and void. Thus, in case where public project operators do not pay or deposit the compensation determined by the expropriation committee by the time of expropriation, and hold possession or use of the land subject to expropriation without paying or depositing it until the designated time of expropriation, the decision of expropriation by the Expropriation Committee loses its validity in whole, unless there is any special reason, such as whether there was a post-payment agreement on the compensation or raising an objection only against the compensation amount, and there is no objection against it. Accordingly, the decision of expropriation by the Expropriation Committee is justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the obligation to return illegal profits, as long as the court below did not pay or deposit each compensation until the time of expropriation in accordance with the decision of the Central Land Expropriation Committee on the land owned by the plaintiffs, and therefore, it cannot be justified in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the obligation to return illegal profits.

In addition, even if the land is the first-class national highway, the road is located in the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and according to Article 22 and Article 56 of the Road Act, the management agency of the national highway bears the revenue cost of the road as the defendant city. Therefore, it cannot be said that the claim against the defendant city filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant city was erroneous, such as the theory of lawsuit.

Next, the Plaintiff’s agent’s ground of appeal is health.

In reviewing the original judgment and records, even though the court below explained that the written appraisal by the Nonparty of the appraiser of the party to the trial only indicates the market price price and there is no specific indication of the rent, it shall not be interpreted that the purport of the examination includes the evidence pointed out in the arguments and the meaning of rejecting the claim premised thereon. Therefore, there is no illegality in the omission of the judgment in the original judgment. The argument is groundless.

Therefore, each appeal shall be dismissed, and the cost of appeal shall be borne by the losing party and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Supreme Court Judges Kim Young-chul (Presiding Judge) (Presiding Justice) Mag-gim Kim, Kim Jong-dae and Yang-Namng