B. Whether a landowner’s acceptance of the amount of compensation set forth in the adjudication of expropriation after having declared his/her intention to reserve an objection and, in case where a landowner received the increased amount of compensation in the adjudication of acceptance without the declaration of reservation during the administrative litigation, it shall be deemed to have taken the result of the adjudication (affirmative)

B. Where a landowner did not express his/her intent of reservation, such as partial receipt of the increased amount of compensation, even though he/she had expressed his/her intent of reservation at the time of receiving the amount of compensation determined by the adjudication of expropriation, it is reasonable to deem that the Central Land Expropriation Committee received it in accordance with the purport of the deposit by taking advantage of the outcome determined by the adjudication of an objection. The fact that the administrative litigation disputing the said adjudication is pending at the time of receiving the deposit cannot be deemed as the same as the declaration of intention of the objection to the receipt of the deposit.

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed and all costs of appeal are assessed against the plaintiff.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged, based on macroficial evidence, that each piece of land listed in (i) through (v) of the List 2 as indicated in the judgment of the court below is incorporated into an urban planning as a road from No. 80 of May 15, 197 to No. 25 of the 20, Feb. 19, 1987, under Articles 10, 12, and 13 of the Urban Planning Act, which is included in the urban planning from No. 1 to No. 3, No. 1, 3, as stated in the judgment of the court below, as the land in this case is located within the boundary of neighboring land connected to the land listed in the first list of the land in this case, and it is considerably difficult to accept the remaining portion of the land belonging to the same landowner for its original purpose, and thus, it cannot be viewed that the remaining portion of the land is still being expropriated and used for the same purpose as the land in this case, regardless of its previous purpose.

2. We examine the Defendant and the Intervenor’s Intervenor’s Intervenor’s ground of appeal No. 1.

(1) According to the reasoning of the judgment below, as the plaintiff received compensation increased in the judgment of this case without any objection, the court below decided on June 3, 198 as to the defendant's main defense that there was no interest in the lawsuit of this case, that the defendant accepted the plaintiff's land in this case for the national housing construction project in the Yuk-si National Housing Construction Project implemented by the Korea National Housing Corporation, which is the intervenor joining the defendant, as a corporate entrepreneur, as total compensation amount of KRW 1,371,884,00, and the above Korea National Housing Corporation, which is a corporate entrepreneur, provided the plaintiff with the above expropriation amount of KRW 1,371,84,00, and received some compensation amount of the above expropriation amount around June 29, 198, it rejected the plaintiff's allegation that the defendant received compensation amount of this case from the above defendant's 1,787,192,500, and the plaintiff's remaining claim for expropriation of this case cannot be seen as receiving compensation amount of this case's 98150,05.

(2) However, in cases where a public project operator under the Land Expropriation Act deposits land expropriation compensation adjudicated by the Land Expropriation Committee pursuant to Article 61(2)1 of the Land Expropriation Act, or deposits increased compensation by the Central Land Expropriation Committee’s ruling pursuant to Articles 75(2) and 61(2)1 of the same Act, the deposit is for the performance of the obligation to pay compensation according to the land expropriation borne by the public project operator to the land owner, and it does not differ from the deposit for repayment under the Civil Act, and if the land owner receives the compensation deposited without any reservation, the land owner shall be deemed to have received the compensation pursuant to its purport by taking over the land expropriation ruling or objection ruling by the Land Expropriation Committee (see Supreme Court Decisions 81Nu254 delivered on June 14, 1983 and 90Nu7203 delivered on June 11, 191). It cannot be deemed that the land owner has received the compensation in accordance with the purport of the administrative litigation, which is an expression of his/her intention to receive the compensation at the time of acceptance of the compensation under the adjudication.

(3) Therefore, the court below held that since the plaintiff expressed his/her intention of reservation of partial receipt in receiving compensation as stipulated in the decision of acceptance from the business operator, even if he/she received the increased compensation in the decision of acceptance without his/her intention of reservation, it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff received the increased compensation without his/her intention of reservation, it erred in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the deposit of compensation for objection under the Land Expropriation Act and the effect of its receipt, and the appeal pointing this out is justified [Additionally, according to the statement of a written claim for withdrawal of deposit (No. 10-2 and No. 130, No. 130, No. 130) cited by the court below, the plaintiff is deemed to have received the increased compensation in the decision of this case from the public official in receipt of the deposit, and therefore, the plaintiff is deemed to have received it in accordance with the purport of the deposit).

3. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the Plaintiff, and since the part of the judgment below against the Defendant cannot be maintained, the part of the judgment below against the Defendant is reversed and remanded to the Seoul High Court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Lee Jae-sung (Presiding Justice)