Article 65(a) of the Land Expropriation Act provides that "if a public project operator fails to pay or deposit the indemnity adjudicated by the competent Land Expropriation Committee by the time of expropriation or use, the adjudication by the relevant Land Expropriation Committee shall lose its effect," and the purport of Article 65(a) of the same Act is to prevent the property rights of the owners of the land to be expropriated and those holding rights on the land from being unilaterally infringed by the public authority without any justifiable compensation. Therefore, even at the time of the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee pursuant to Article 75 of the same Act, the effective provision of Article 65 of the same Act shall apply mutatis mutandis to the case of the adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee pursuant to Article 75 of the same Act. Therefore, if the indemnity has been increased due to cancellation or change of the original adjudication by the Central Land Expropriation Committee, the said adjudication by the public project operator shall also become null and void

However, with respect to the adjudication of objection by the Central Land Tribunal, when the compensation has been increased due to the cancellation or change of the original adjudication, public project operators shall pay or deposit the increased compensation within one month from the date of being served with the original adjudication of the said written adjudication, and unlike the written adjudication of the competent Land Tribunal, they did not have any other provision on the invalidation of Article 65 of the same Act or any other ground for its application. Article 75-2 (2) of the same Act provides that when the adjudication on objection is finalized, it shall be deemed a final and conclusive judgment under the Civil Procedure Act, and Article 76 of the same Act provides that the progress of the project and the expropriation or use of land shall not be suspended even if an objection is filed by the competent Land Tribunal against the adjudication of the competent Land Tribunal. In full view of these provisions, even if the competent Land Tribunal and the public project operators have not deposited the increased compensation in this adjudication within a certain period, the said adjudication itself shall not be construed as null and void as a matter of course.

Nevertheless, the court below held that the judgment of this case was invalidated by misunderstanding the legal principles as to the invalidation of the ruling and the invalidation of the ruling on this case, after the lapse of one month from the date on which the Gwangju-si Gun, a business entity of this case, was served with a written objection on the same grounds as the judge, that the judgment of this case deposited the increased compensation in the judgment on the objection. The argument pointing this out is with merit.

Therefore, the judgment below is reversed and the case is remanded to the court below. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)