Law Firm Barun (LLC)

Attorney Lee Won-il et al.

Law Firm LLC et al., Counsel for defendant-appellant

[Defendant-Appellee] Plaintiff 1 and 2 others

The costs of appeal are assessed against the defendant.

1. As to the grounds of appeal Nos. 1, 3, and 5

The lower court determined as follows, and partially accepted the Plaintiffs’ claim for damages due to the tort.

A. The project for opening the access road of this case is all the project of this case and its whole business.

B. On July 20, 2010, the instant project itself was discontinued due to the cancellation of the designation of a foreign investment zone and a general industrial complex on the instant project site, and the instant land is no longer necessary for the instant project, and thus, the instant land was subject to a repurchase right under Article 91(1) of the former Act on Acquisition of and Compensation for Land, etc. for Public Works Projects (amended by Act No. 11017, Aug. 4, 201; hereinafter “former Land Compensation Act”).

C. Nevertheless, the Defendant, either intentionally or by negligence, did not notify or publicly notify the Plaintiffs of the occurrence of a redemptive right under Article 92(1) of the former Land Compensation Act. Accordingly, the Plaintiffs suffered damages due to the lapse of 1 year from the time when the land in this case became unnecessary for the instant project and 10 years from the date of each consultation acquisition with respect to the instant land.

Examining the reasoning of the lower judgment in light of the relevant legal principles and records, such determination by the lower court is justifiable. In so doing, contrary to what is alleged in the grounds of appeal, the lower court did not err by misapprehending the legal doctrine regarding the meaning of “the pertinent business” under Article 91(1) of the former Land Compensation Act, the standard of determining “where all or part of the acquired land becomes unnecessary,” and the period of

2. Regarding ground of appeal No. 2

The Defendant’s ground of appeal on this part that the cancellation of the designation of this case constitutes “the partial cancellation of the designation of an industrial complex” under Article 13(2) of the former Industrial Sites and Development Act (amended by Act No. 10272, Apr. 15, 2010) is a new assertion that was made only before the final appeal and cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal. Furthermore, even if examining the relevant legal principles and records in light of the relevant legal principles, its assertion cannot be accepted.

3. As to the fourth ground for appeal

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below determined that the conversion of public works under Article 91 (6) of the former Land Compensation Act to public works is limited to the case where public works approved under Article 20 (1) of the same Act are changed to other public works, and there is no evidence to deem that the Yanananan City publicly announced the authorization of the implementation plan for the urban planning facility project separately from the project of this case, and there is no other evidence to deem that the project approval under Article 20 of the former Land Compensation Act was granted in relation to the establishment of the access road of this case, and therefore, it cannot be deemed that the exercise of the repurchase right already occurred in relation to the land

In light of the relevant legal principles and records, the above determination by the court below is just, and it did not err by misapprehending the legal principles on the subject of application of Article 91(6) of the former Land Compensation Act, thereby affecting the conclusion of

4. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and 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 Cho Jae-chul

Justices Lee Dong-won

Justices Park Gyeong-tae, Counsel for the defendant