[2] Whether Article 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act shall not apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation or use for a redevelopment project under Article 39(2) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act (negative)

[3] Whether a claim for late payment additional charges under Article 25-3 (3) of the Land Expropriation Act may be filed in civil litigation, not administrative litigation (negative)

[2] Notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 17 and 25(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, the application for this ruling under Article 39(2) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act shall be made within the implementation period of the redevelopment project as stipulated in the authorization of the execution of the redevelopment project. Except as otherwise provided in the former Urban Redevelopment Act, the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of land owners and persons concerned, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 39(1) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act that guarantees the right to request a ruling, the provisions of Article 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act, which guarantees the right to request a ruling, cannot be interpreted to apply

[3] The additional dues for delay under Article 25-3 (3) of the Land Expropriation Act have the nature of the statutory damages for delay on the compensation for expropriation. Therefore, the objection to the additional dues for delay is reasonable in accordance with the procedure of objection to the compensation for expropriation, and Article 16-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "the amount to be paid in addition to the amount under Article 25-3 (3) of the Land Expropriation Act shall be entered in the written ruling by the competent Land Tribunal, and the project operator shall pay it along with the compensation for expropriation by the expropriation ruling." Thus, the objection to the additional dues for delay shall be subject to the lawsuit for increase of the compensation for expropriation.

1. As to the appeal on delayed application for land expropriation adjudication, additional dues of 8,400,000 won

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, since the defendant had been granted authorization for the project implementation on August 2, 190 under the Urban Redevelopment Act of 20, 190, 28, 200, 200,000 won and 15.9 m2 of the Mapo-gu, Seoul ( Address omitted) road within 281, 300,000 won and 20,000 won and 20,000 won and 30,000 won and 40,000 won and 20,000 won and 9,000 won and 20,000 won and 20,000 won and 9,00 won and 20,000 won and 9,00 won and 9,00 won and 10,000 won and 9,00 won and 10,000 won and 10,000 won and 9,00 won and 9,00 won.

B. (1) However, we cannot accept the above judgment of the court below.

The reason why the Land Expropriation Act grants the landowner and the person concerned the right to claim a ruling under each paragraph of Article 25-3 is that the developer can apply for a ruling at any time within one year after the public notification of project approval (in the case of a redevelopment project, within the implementation period of the redevelopment project), while the landowner and the person concerned do not have the right to claim a ruling, the landowner and the person concerned are aimed at protecting the interests of the landowner and the person concerned, who are bound by the prompt confirmation of the legal relationship surrounding the expropriation, and ensuring fairness between the parties to the expropriation (see Supreme Court Decision 93Nu9064 delivered on August 27,

However, Articles 17 and 25(2) of the Land Expropriation Act provide that when a project operator fails to file an application for adjudication with the competent Land Expropriation Committee within one year from the date of public announcement of the project approval, the project approval shall lose its effect from the next day of the expiration of the period. Article 39 of the former Urban Redevelopment Act provides that the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the expropriation or use for the execution of redevelopment project (Article 1) but the application for adjudication of expropriation for the execution of redevelopment project shall be made within the period of execution of the redevelopment project as determined in the implementation of the urban redevelopment project under the Urban Redevelopment Act (Article 17 and Article 25(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 17 and 25(2) of the same Act, the land expropriation project shall be made within the period of execution of the redevelopment project (Article 2 of the Land Expropriation Act). The land expropriation project operator’s application for adjudication within the period of execution as determined by the project approval for the execution of the redevelopment project without the expiration of the period of execution.

Therefore, the application for this ruling under Article 39(2) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act shall be made within the period of execution of the redevelopment project as stipulated in the authorization of the execution of the redevelopment project, notwithstanding the provisions of Articles 17 and 25(2) of the Land Expropriation Act. Except as otherwise provided in the former Urban Redevelopment Act, the Land Expropriation Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of land expropriation for the purpose of the implementation of the redevelopment project, notwithstanding the provisions of Article 39(1) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act, the provisions of Article 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act guaranteeing the landowner and the person concerned the right to claim a ruling shall not apply

Nevertheless, the court below held that the provisions of Article 25-3 (1), (2) and (3) of the Land Expropriation Act cannot be applied mutatis mutandis to the case of land expropriation for the implementation of redevelopment project by taking a dissenting opinion. The court below erred in the interpretation of Article 39 (1) and (2) of the former Urban Redevelopment Act and Article 25-3 of the Land Expropriation Act.

(2) On the other hand, the additional dues under Article 25-3 (3) of the Land Expropriation Act have the nature of the statutory damages for delay on the compensation for expropriation. Accordingly, it is reasonable to object to the procedure of objection to the compensation for expropriation, and Article 16-3 of the Enforcement Decree of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "the amount to be paid in addition to the provisions of Article 25-3 (3) of the Land Expropriation Act shall be entered in the written ruling by the competent Land Tribunal, and the public project operator shall pay the additional dues up to the time of expropriation together with the compensation for expropriation." Thus, the objection to the additional dues for delay shall be decided by the expropriation decision together with the compensation for expropriation. Thus, the plaintiff's objection to the increase of the compensation for expropriation shall be decided by the suit on December 3, 1994. Since the plaintiff received the written ruling of this case and delivered the written ruling on the objection under Article 75-2 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act within the period of administrative litigation, the additional dues shall not be filed for the change of the amount of the above claim for expropriation and additional dues due to 10.

2. As to the remaining grounds of appeal

The Plaintiff filed an appeal regarding the claim amounting to KRW 5,668,932, which is a part of the claim for damages due to the above illegal act among the lawsuits in this case. However, the Plaintiff did not state any grounds as to this part in the petition of appeal or the appellate brief.

3. Therefore, the part of the judgment of the court below regarding delayed application for land expropriation and additional dues of 8,400,000 won is reversed, and this part is sufficient to be decided directly by the party members. Therefore, the lawsuit claiming additional dues among the lawsuit in this case shall be dismissed. The remaining appeals shall be dismissed and all costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by

Justices Lee Yong-hun (Presiding Justice)