In exercising the right of repurchase under Article 71 of the Land Expropriation Act, the amount of compensation shall be provided in advance to the public project operator for repurchase. Examining the reasoning of the judgment below in light of the records, the court below held that the right of repurchase has ceased to exist due to the lapse of the ten-year period (in this case, as December 30, 1971) under the Land Expropriation Act, on the ground that the date on which the plaintiff served on the defendant Seoul Special Metropolitan City for claiming the redemption of the land of this case on February 1, 1972 and there was no exercise of the right under the legitimate procedure under the said Land Expropriation Act, and that the above right of repurchase has ceased to exist due to the lapse of the ten-year period (in this case, as December 30, 1971). There is no error of law by misunderstanding facts against the rules of evidence or misunderstanding the legal principles on the exercise of the right of repurchase, such as the theory of lawsuit, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff merely provided a right of repurchase under the said Land Expropriation Act to the public project operator.

(2) We examine the grounds of appeal by the Defendant’s attorney.

With respect to the first and second points:

In accordance with the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below states that there is a repurchase right in the case where the expropriation by the defendant Seoul Metropolitan Government becomes unusable under the current Land Expropriation Act for the several purposes of the land in this case. Such determination by the court below is not acceptable, and there is no error of law by misapprehending the legal principles of the Land Expropriation Act, and there is no negligence in failing to notify the existence of a repurchase right, such as the argument, unless it is recognized that there is a repurchase right, such as the above explanation

With respect to paragraphs 3 and 4:

Although the court below decided that only KRW 860,200, out of KRW 3,860,000 of the amount of compensation for the plaintiff's negligence was lost as a set-off, the court below compared to the records, and compared with the records, it cannot be viewed as a proper measure, and even if there is no somewhat insufficient reason in calculating the amount of compensation for the plaintiff's negligence, the total amount of compensation cannot be deemed to be improper in light of the circumstances shown in the records, etc., although the court below's calculation method of the amount of compensation for the plaintiff's negligence was not somewhat insufficient, the court below's disposition is ultimately justified.

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Presiding Yellow (Presiding Justice)