1. Under Article 61(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, the deposit of compensation for losses made by the competent land expropriation committee for public project operators pursuant to the land expropriation ruling is indirectly enforced by Article 65 of the same Act. In the event that such deposit is not voluntary, even if the deposited person had expressed his intent not to receive the deposit to the deposited person because the application of Article 489 of the Civil Act was excluded, the deposited person cannot recover the deposit, and therefore, the deposited person cannot pay the deposit even if the deposited person can recover the deposit, on the premise that not only the deposited person's claim for the recovery of the deposit but also the public official can recover the deposit.

According to the reasoning of the order of the court below, when accepting the land of this case owned by the re-appellant in accordance with the decision of the Central Land Expropriation Committee, the re-appellant deposited the compensation for losses under Article 61 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act as to the expropriation of the land of this case by the same committee. In this case, when the re-appellant refused to receive the compensation, he received an order for part of the claim for recovery of deposit money under the name of obligation against the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, and accordingly requested the recovery of the whole deposit money, the court below held that the public depository officer's non-acceptance of the above claim for recovery of deposit money under the premise that the above claim for recovery of deposit is not accepted by the Seoul Special Metropolitan City, because the Seoul Special Metropolitan City did not have the above claim for recovery

2. In examining the records of the case, since the Central Land Expropriation Committee's ruling of expropriation of the land of this case is deemed to have been null and void automatically or has been revoked by filing an objection or administrative litigation, etc., the judgment below to the same purport is just and there is no reason to argue that the Seoul Special Metropolitan City may recover the deposit under the premise that the above ruling

3. Therefore, the reappeal is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Yellow-il (Presiding Justice)