[2] In a case where the owner of land, etc. incorporated into an urban planning facility project district receives the land compensation determined by the expropriation ruling after reserving an objection, but files an administrative litigation as to an increase or decrease in compensation, and then receives the increased compensation in the adjudication without stating an objection, the case holding that an implied objection had been declared to have been declared

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below acknowledged the fact that the plaintiff reserved and received the compensation for the land determined by the decision of expropriation, but received the increased compensation in the decision without stating the intention of reservation as the reasons stated in its reasoning after the institution of the lawsuit in this case, and determined that the part concerning the claim for land compensation among the lawsuit in this case was illegal for lack of legal interest in the lawsuit, on the ground that it cannot be deemed that the plaintiff continued to have filed the lawsuit in this case at the time of receiving the compensation, and that the lawsuit in this case was in existence at the time of receiving the compensation.

First of all, the argument in the grounds of appeal as to the existence of the intention of reservation, deception, or mistake in the process of receiving increased compensation in the objection ruling is merely a challenge to the selection of evidence or the recognition of facts, which are the exclusive authority of the court below, and it cannot be a legitimate ground of appeal.

However, it is difficult to accept the judgment of the court below that there was an expression of intent of reservation at the time when the plaintiff received increased compensation in the objection ruling.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below and the record, the plaintiff received compensation from the defendant on August 2, 2005 under the reservation, and filed the lawsuit of this case immediately on the 10th day of the same month (the claim amount is stated as KRW 10,00,000 on the premise of expansion of claim after drilling), and applied for the market price appraisal on September 21, 2005, and paid the appraisal cost of KRW 2,285,000 on September 21, 2005, and thereafter, on October 26, 2005, the Central Land Tribunal issued an objection to increase of KRW 2,238,90 on October 23, 2005, and on November 23, 2005, the plaintiff received the above increased compensation amount from the defendant on the 17th day of the same month (the plaintiff received the above increased compensation amount from the defendant on the 20th day after the date of receiving the above appraisal at the 16th day of the first instance trial, 2015th day after receipt of the appraisal.

Inasmuch as the expression of intent to reserve an objection to a project operator at the time of receiving compensation in the land expropriation procedure does not necessarily have to be explicitly stated (see Supreme Court Decision 88Meu11053, Jul. 25, 1989). As above, the Plaintiff filed an administrative litigation by disputing the amount of compensation increased by the ruling of acceptance, and filed an application for market price appraisal by prepayment of reasonable appraisal costs (which exceeds the amount determined thereafter). The increase in compensation for objection received by the Plaintiff is less than 1/4 of the initial claim amount stated provisionally on the premise of market price appraisal in the complaint of this case. The increase in compensation for expropriation does not require special additional procedural costs except for market price appraisal in the administrative litigation where only the increase in compensation for expropriation is disputed. Therefore, it is not necessary for the Plaintiff to bear additional expenditures to verify the outcome of the lawsuit of this case at the time of receiving compensation for increased in compensation for the instant case, and the Plaintiff’s legal representative also did not have any legal intent to receive compensation for the above increase in compensation from the first instance court without being aware of the legal issue at the first instance court’s.

Nevertheless, the court below rejected the part concerning the claim for land compensation in the lawsuit of this case as an unlawful lawsuit with no interest in the lawsuit on the sole basis of its stated reasoning that the plaintiff could not be deemed to have expressed his/her intent of reservation. Such determination by the court below is erroneous in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the expression of intent of reservation in the process of receiving land expropriation compensation, and it is clear that such illegality affected the judgment.

Therefore, the judgment of the court below is reversed, and the case is remanded to the court below for a new trial and determination. It is so decided as per Disposition.

Justices Ahn Dai-hee (Presiding Justice)