2. The ruling on an objection regarding the expropriation of land made by the Defendant on June 29, 1982 with respect to shares of 1/2 of the lands listed in Schedule 1 and Schedule 2 (Plaintiff's shares) shall be revoked.

3. Two-minutes of litigation costs are assessed against the defendant, and the remainder is assessed against the plaintiff.

2. On the grounds stated in the above, the defendant asserted the legality of the disposition of the objection of this case on the following grounds: first, the plaintiff did not pay or deposit the compensation based on the expropriation ruling of June 24, 1980 to the plaintiff on July 30, 1980, which is the expropriation date, as in the above above, as the plaintiff did not pay or deposit the compensation to the plaintiff on June 24, 1980; therefore, the above decision of June 24, 1980 was invalidated pursuant to Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act; therefore, the above approval of the project became null and void due to the invalidation of the above application for adjudication on July 4, 1979, and the above approval of the project became null and void, and if the plaintiff accepted the above case 1 and 2, the plaintiff must again file a new application for adjudication with the Minister of Construction and Transportation after obtaining the approval of the new project, notwithstanding the fact that the plaintiff still remains valid on the part of the plaintiff on December 6, 1978.

Second, even if the defendant did not have any error as seen earlier in accepting the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case, in light of the fact that all the land adjacent to the land Nos. 1 and 2 of this case were transacted in a usual amount of KRW 40,000 at that time, and thus, the disposition of objection of this case is unlawful. Thus, if we look at the 1/2 of the land No. 1 and 2 of this case, if the plaintiff raised an objection against the original decision of this case, it is limited to 1/2 of the land No. 1 and 2 of this case and the defendant raised an objection against the original decision of this case is limited to only 1/1/2 of the plaintiff's shares among the land No. 2 of this case, and therefore, the plaintiff's cancellation of the judgment of this case against the above 1/2 of the land No. 1 and the above 1/2 of this case has no administrative disposition, so it is inappropriate to dismiss it because the plaintiff's cancellation of the judgment of this case is unlawful.

Article 14 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that if public project operators intend to expropriate or use the above land from the first and second cases, they shall obtain approval of the project from the Minister of Construction and Transportation. Article 16 (1) of the same Act provides that the public project operators shall, without delay, notify the owners of the land and the relevant Do governor of the fact that the land would be no longer effective for the first and sixth cases. This Section 2 provides that the approval of the project shall take effect from the date of the above public announcement, and that, if the land would be no longer effective for the second and sixth cases, the land would be no longer effective for the first and sixth cases. This Section 9 of the Land Expropriation Act provides that if the land would be no longer effective for the second and sixth cases, the land would be no longer effective for the second and subsequent owners of the land and the relevant land to be expropriated within 17 days after the public announcement of the approval under the provisions of Article 16, the land expropriation committee shall no longer take effect for the second and subsequent cases.

In regard to this, even if the ruling on the objection of this case is unlawful as seen earlier, the defendant has already modified the entire land Nos. 1 and 2 in the military unit under the jurisdiction of the intervenor into the training site for the reserve forces and its facility site. If the ruling on the objection of this case is revoked, it is not only necessary to suspend the training activities of the reserve forces for the defense of homeland but also considerable expenses for the removal, etc. of the facilities so that the plaintiff's claim can be dismissed pursuant to Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act. Thus, Article 12 of the above Administrative Litigation Act should be decided by comparing the need to cancel or change illegal and unfair administrative dispositions and the situation that substantially damages public welfare caused by the cancellation or alteration thereof, and its application should be decided by comparing the situation that the defendant's above disposition on the plaintiff's share of land Nos. 1, 292 and 1/2 with the above land No. 971 of June 29, 192. Thus, it cannot be seen that the defendant's above disposition on the plaintiff's share of this case becomes invalid.

3. Thus, among the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case, the part of the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case's 1/2 of the 1.2 of this case's 1/2 of the 1982 land's 1/2 of the 1.2 of the 1.2 of this case's 1/2 of the land's 1/2 of the land's 1/2 of the land's 1/2 of the land's 1 and the 1/2 of the land's 1/2 of the land's 1. The plaintiff's 1/2 of the land's 1

January 24, 1984

Judges Kim Jong-Un (Presiding Judge) Guil-do