2. All of the claims of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, and 7 and claims of Plaintiffs 8 are dismissed.

3. Of the costs of lawsuit, the costs incurred between Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, and 7 and the Defendant are borne by the supplementary intervenor, respectively.

As the second preliminary claim, the judgment dismissing the above plaintiffs' objection as to the plaintiffs' objection against the expropriation ruling by the local Land Expropriation Committee of Seoul Special Metropolitan City on September 14, 1979 on each land listed in the order of Paragraph (1) owned by the above plaintiffs is revoked as of January 30, 1980.

The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant, and the plaintiff 8 shall be revoked by the defendant as of January 30, 1980 on the land listed in the attached Table 6 owned by the plaintiff 8 as of September 14, 1979 on the land listed in the attached Table 6 owned by the plaintiff 8.

The judgment that the costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the defendant is individual.

On September 14, 1979, the above plaintiffs accepted (title omitted) land in the annexed list (excluding land recorded in the annexed list 6; hereinafter the same shall apply) owned by the above plaintiffs for the urban planning project (construction of new commercial high schools) to be implemented by the defendant's assistant intervenor (title omitted), and made a decision of expropriation on October 10, 1979 with the period of expropriation as compensation as stated in the annexed list 1. The defendant's assistant intervenor did not pay compensation to the above plaintiffs who are the land owners until the above expropriation period or made a lawful deposit without any condition. Thus, the above expropriation ruling by the above local land expropriation committee of the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City lost its effect by Article 65 of the Land Expropriation Act. The defendant asserted that the defendant raised an objection against the above ruling by the above local land expropriation committee of the above Seoul Special Metropolitan City and the above local land expropriation committee of 235,807, 99, 197, 309, 197, 1988.

First, with respect to the above plaintiffs' primary claims,

The adjudication of expropriation on September 14, 1979 by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City was changed by the defendant's ruling on January 30, 1980 by the above plaintiffs' assertion itself, and it is obvious by the above plaintiffs' assertion that the above plaintiffs cannot seek confirmation of the invalidation of the adjudication of the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City at the main office of the local Land Tribunal of the case where the defendant is the Central Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, regardless of the dispute that the above plaintiffs' adjudication by the Central Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City was against the illegal adjudication of the local Land Tribunal of Korea. Thus

Next, we examine the first preliminary claim of the plaintiffs.

(1) The plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 1 and 3 through 9 (each written ruling), 2-1 and 3 through 8-2 (each written ruling), 2-1, 5-1, 7-1, 8-1, 8-1, 9-1, 9-1 through 12, 10-1 and 7-2 of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City City Urban Planning Facilities' 2-1, 7-2, 10-1 and 9-1, 10-1 through 12, 14-1, 2-2 (No. 15-2), 15-1, 2-2 (No. 16-2), and 3-2 of the same list of the land as the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 2-1 and the plaintiff 3-2 of the same city planning facilities' land as the plaintiff 1 and the plaintiff 3-2 of the same city planning facilities's new urban planning facilities project.

However, the Defendant’s assistant intervenor, who is a business entity, deposited each of the above compensation money on October 10, 1979, without paying the above compensation money to the above Plaintiffs, with the condition that the documents necessary for the registration of the transfer of ownership will be delivered as consideration to the above Plaintiffs except Plaintiff 8. The Plaintiffs dissatisfied with the compensation amount of the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Regional Land Expropriation Committee, and raised an objection against the Defendant. However, as shown in the attached Table 2 of January 30, 1980, the Defendant changed the compensation money to KRW 453,891,30 and dismissed the remainder of the objection by the Plaintiffs, and there is no counter-proof.

However, according to the provisions of Articles 61, 65, and 67 of the Land Expropriation Act, public project operators shall pay compensation adjudicated by the competent Land Tribunal until the expropriation time. However, the compensation may be deposited until the expropriation time is special cases such as the person who refuses to receive compensation or objects to the compensation. If public project operators fail to pay or deposit compensation by the expropriation time, the adjudication on expropriation shall lose its effect, and if the compensation is paid or deposited lawfully, the ownership shall be acquired on the date of expropriation. In light of the purport of the above provision, it is reasonable to interpret that the conditional deposit, such as demanding the documents required for the registration of transfer of ownership, shall not be permitted if the compensation is deposited, and it shall be interpreted that the above plaintiffs shall make a conditional deposit without any reason. In this case, the above conditional deposit of the defendant shall not be effective as a legitimate deposit, so even if the public project operators did not pay or deposit the compensation by the expropriation time until the expropriation of land, the local Land Expropriation Committee's adjudication on expropriation of the defendant shall not be held effective, and even if the parties did not have received the compensation by the adjudication procedure.

Therefore, the first preliminary claim of the above plaintiffs is justified.

However, the Intervenor asserts that the above plaintiffs asserted that the amount of compensation is less than the amount of compensation in raising an objection against the ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and that the above conditional deposit is null and void, and that the above conditional deposit should be asserted to the effect of the ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the Plaintiffs should dispute the validity of the ruling against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City Land Tribunal, and thus, the lawsuit against the Defendant

On the other hand, as seen earlier, the ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City became null and void, and the defendant's ruling that raised an objection to it was against the illegality in the procedure of the above local Land Tribunal's ruling, so the defendant's above assertion against the defendant is without merit. Second, the defendant's intervenor's allegation that the above plaintiffs raised no objection against the invalidity of the above deposit in raising an objection against the ruling of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal of Seoul Special Metropolitan City, the defendant's allegation that the above deposit constitutes abuse of rights is contrary to the principle of good faith and constitutes abuse of rights.

However, as seen earlier, even if there is no ground for objection in raising an objection against the adjudication of expropriation by the local Land Tribunal, it may be asserted as a legitimate ground for objection in this case. Thus, the defendant's allegation is without merit. Third, the defendant's intervenor educates several students who are equipped with school facilities, such as construction of teachers and construction of playgrounds, etc. on the ground of delivery of the land. When the defendant's claim for this case is accepted, the damage suffered by the defendant's intervenor is so large that it goes against public welfare, and thus, the above plaintiffs' claim should be dismissed. Thus, even if the administrative disposition seeking the cancellation by administrative litigation is illegal, if it is deemed that the cancellation of the administrative disposition is not significantly inappropriate for public welfare, it can be dismissed without revocation, and in this case, even if the defendant's objection is revoked, it can be accepted again through a series of procedures, and it cannot be said that the defendant's appeal's appeal may not be directly detrimental to public welfare, such as the suspension of education, etc. by the defendant's appeal.

2. The following plaintiff 8's claim is examined.

The plaintiff 8 asserts that the defendant's decision on January 30, 1980 against the land listed in the annexed Table 6 owned by the plaintiff was unlawful since the amount of compensation set at KRW 13,950 per square meter per square meter 20,101,950 is KRW 77,60 per square meter per square meter at the time of the ruling of expropriation, and the market price of KRW 77,60 through 97,00 per square meter at the time of the ruling of expropriation is too low and reasonable in light of neighboring land transaction values.

According to Article 46 (1) of the Land Expropriation Act, the amount of loss shall be calculated on the basis of the price at the time of the ruling of expropriation, and it shall be calculated at a reasonable price taking into account the transaction price of neighboring land. In full account of the contents of No. 11-2 and No. 3 (Request for Appraisal) without dispute over establishment and the result of on-site inspection by the party members, the price of the land owned by the plaintiff as of September 14, 1979 at the time of the ruling of expropriation shall be 13,950 won per square meter, 20,101,950 won per square meter, which is equivalent to 20-1,2 (Request for Appraisal and Appraisal), A evidence No. 21-1, 21-2 (Report of Appraisal and Appraisal), 6, 7-1 (each contract of appraisal and Appraisal), 2-2, 3-3 and 3-1 (each of the above appraisal and appraisal results shall not be recognized.

Therefore, the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, and 7's primary claims are without merit. Thus, since the defendant's decision on the above plaintiffs' objection against the adjudication of expropriation of the local Land Tribunal is unlawful, the plaintiff 1, 2, 3, 5, 4, 6, and 7's primary claims against the above plaintiffs' second preliminary claims are justified. Thus, the plaintiff 8's claim is not required to be judged, and the plaintiff 8's claim is without merit, and it is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition by applying Article 14 of the Administrative Litigation Act, Articles 89, 92, 93, and 94 of the Civil Procedure Act to the cost of lawsuit.

Judges Park Jong-chul(Presiding Judge)