[보상금][집27(1)민,1;공1979.5.15.(608),11760]
Requirements for the occurrence of claims by shareholders of the Chuncheon Railroad Corporation
In the absence of a circumstance committee to assess the amount of compensation due to the expropriation of the entire properties of the Chuncheon Railroad Corporation pursuant to subparagraph 4 of Article 75 and Article 5 of the Military Administration Act, or where there was no decision to determine the amount of compensation following such circumstance, the right to claim compensation shall not be deemed to have yet been determined.
Military Affairs Act No. 75, No. 4, 75, Article 5
Korea Development Bank Co., Ltd., Counsel for defendant-appellee
Korea
Seoul High Court Decision 66Na1686 delivered on August 24, 1978
The appeal shall be dismissed. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The grounds of appeal by the Plaintiff’s attorney are examined.
In this case where the plaintiff filed a claim for compensation from the U.S. military administration pursuant to the Uniform of the Shipbuilding Railroad Act No. 75 of the military administration and the U.S. military administration for expropriation of the entire property of the non-party Pacific Railroad and the Minister of Construction and Transportation who succeeded to the business after the establishment of the government of the Republic of Korea constituted a situation committee to assess the compensation amount due to the above expropriation pursuant to the above Acts and subordinate statutes and Articles 4 and 5 of the above Acts and subordinate statutes, or the determination of compensation amount has not been made until now, the plaintiff's claim for compensation cannot be deemed to have been made definitely since there is no dispute between the parties, so the plaintiff's claim for compensation cannot be deemed to have been made definitely. Thus, it is just that the court has determined that it is unnecessary to make a further determination, and there is no ground to view that there is a misapprehension of the legal principles as to the plaintiff's claim for compensation
Based on its adopted evidence, the court below held that the plaintiff's right to claim compensation is valid since it is not recognized to have waived his right by recognizing the fact that the plaintiff made a lawful claim for compensation within the period stipulated under Article 3 of the above military law, and therefore the plaintiff's right to claim compensation remains valid since it is not excluded from the "determined claim for compensation" under Article 3 (2) of the Addenda to the above law. However, it is difficult to conclude that the defendant's right to claim compensation by misunderstanding the supplementary provisions of the above law, thereby denying the plaintiff's right to claim compensation, and that the plaintiff's right to claim compensation by misunderstanding specific confirmation procedure through the circumstances of compensation amount, is not infringed or extinguished, and therefore the above act of the Minister of Construction and Transportation constitutes a tort of the above Minister of Construction and Transportation. Therefore, it is necessary to judge that the plaintiff's preliminary claim for compensation is groundless, and therefore, it cannot be viewed that there is
Therefore, the appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.
Justices Hah- Port (Presiding Justice)