[2] In the preparation of a land and goods protocol, whether a defect in which a public project operator fails to have a landowner attend the land and sign and seal thereon, or does not have a landowner sign and seal thereon, or where preparing a written statement of agreement, whether the defect in which the landowner did not affix his/her signature and seal is a ground for invalidation of a

A. After compiling the adopted evidence, the court below acknowledged the facts as stated in its holding, and determined that the ruling of expropriation by the defendant Gyeongbuk-do Regional Land Expropriation Committee (hereinafter "the defendant Land Expropriation Committee") on each obstacles on the surface of the land adjacent to the land of this case (hereinafter "each obstacles of this case") was null and void because it did not pay or deposit compensation by the time of expropriation, and that the ruling of expropriation becomes null and void by the defendant Land Expropriation Committee's objection as to each obstacles of this case, which reported the effective ruling of expropriation as above, should also be deemed null and void. However, the decision of expropriation of this case was divided into the land of this case into the obstacles No. 2, No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 1, and No. 2, No. 626, and No. 1, etc. of this case's land of this case, which were separately divided as above, and that the ruling of expropriation of each obstacles of this case becomes null and void by the Act.

In light of the records, we affirm the above judgment of the court below as just, and there is no error of law by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the acceptance ruling and the partial invalidation of the objection judgment, as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

B. In preparing a land and goods protocol under Article 23 of the Land Expropriation Act, even if public project operators did not have landowners attend the land and sign and seal it, such reasons alone cannot be deemed null and void even if they did not make a request for consultation so that public project operators did not explain and understand their gender and truth, and in preparing a written statement of agreement, defects in failing to sign and seal the land owners do not constitute a procedural illegality, and thus, it cannot be deemed that there is a ground for appeal on this point. (See Supreme Court Decision 93Nu2148 delivered on August 13, 1993).

2. As to the conjunctive claim

After compiling the selected evidence, the court below rejected the Plaintiff’s assertion on the ground that the appraisal corporation at the time of the ruling on the objection of this case did not affect the determination of illegality of the appraisal regardless of whether the land category of this case was changed unlawfully as alleged by the Plaintiff, since the land category in the public record is a river, but the land category in the public record is deemed to be an orchard, since the current status of the land is deemed to be a building site and an orchard.

In light of the records, we affirm that the deliberation of evidence, fact-finding, and judgment in the court below is just, and there is no error of misconception of facts or failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations in violation of the rules of evidence as otherwise alleged in the ground of appeal.

3. Conclusion

Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing plaintiff. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Jack-dam (Presiding Justice)