[토지수용재결처분취소][집29(1)행,63;공1981.4.1.(653) 13700]
(a) The legal relationship in case where the landowner who received the deposited compensation for land expropriation without reservation files an objection to such adjudication;
(b) Calculation of the indemnity in the area where the standard land prices under the National Land Management Act have been publicly announced;
A. A landowner who received land expropriation compensation by a public project operator without reservation due to an adjudication by the Land Tribunal shall be deemed to have received the land expropriation compensation in accordance with the purport of the deposit, even if he/she raised an objection against the adjudication, even if he/she did so.
(b) The Minister of Construction and Transportation shall calculate the compensation for expropriation within the area in which the standard land is publicly announced by the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory, in accordance with Article 29 of the said Act, and shall not
Article 61(2) of the Land Expropriation Act, Article 29(1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory
Plaintiff 1 and nine others
Plaintiff 11 through 10, Plaintiff 11’s legal representative
Plaintiff 12 and one other
Attorney Kim Sung-sung, Counsel for the Central Land Tribunal
Industrial Base Development Corporation
Seoul High Court Decision 78Gu258 delivered on September 17, 1980
All appeals are dismissed.
The costs of appeal shall be assessed against each appellant.
First, we examine the grounds of appeal by the attorney of Plaintiffs 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 11, 8, 9, and 10.
If public project operators deposit land expropriation compensation in accordance with Article 61 (2) 1 of the Land Expropriation Act, the deposit shall be deemed to have been made for payment of compensation, so long as the victim, who is the land owner, did not withhold any objection against the deposit public official, even if he files an objection to the decision, the land owner shall be deemed to have received the deposit in accordance with the purpose of the deposit. In this regard, the effect of deposit under the Civil Act shall not be different from that of the deposit under the Civil Act. In the same regard, the court below's decision is just and justified as it did not err in the misapprehension of legal principles as to each of the above legal principles as to each of the above land's own land which the defendant accepted, and as to each of the land's own land at the original time and each of the land at the time when the defendant accepted, and as to each of the land at the time when the defendant executed the development project, each of the plaintiffs's own funds received by the public official in accordance with the defendant's decision as stated in its reasoning.
Next, the defendant's attorney's grounds of appeal are examined.
According to the facts duly admitted by the court below, the land owned by the plaintiff 11, 12, and 13 in the defendant's principal development project of the defendant's intervenor's principal development project shall be subject to the land expropriation by the Minister of Construction and Transportation under Article 29 (1) of the Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory (Law No. 2408, Dec. 30, 1972). Thus, the amount of compensation for expropriation of the above land shall be calculated according to Article 29 of the Land Expropriation Act and Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act shall not be based on Article 46 of the Land Expropriation Act. In the same purport, the court below adopted the appraisal value of the non-party appraised appraised by Article 29 of the above Act on the Utilization and Management of the National Territory and adopted the appraisal value of the above land, and the defendant's decision that the appraisal value was reasonable based on the result of the appraisal conducted by the appraisal company and the △△△ joint office as stated in its reasoning. Thus, the court below's decision is justified and justified.
Therefore, all appeals by each appellant are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against each appellant. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.
Justices Kim Hong-chul (Presiding Justice)